7/10/15: Bubbles Troubles and IMF Spectacles

As was noted in the previous post (link here), IMF is quite rightly concerned with the extent of the global financial bubbles that have emerged in the wake of the years-long QE waves.

This chart shows the extent of over-valuation in sovereign debt markets:

But the following charts show the potential impact of partial unwinding of the bubbles. First up: bonds:

Then, equity:

Per IMF: “The scenario generates moderate to large output losses worldwide” as chart below shows changes in the output in 2017 under stress scenario compared to benign scenario:

And here’s what happens to projected Government debt by 2018:

         Toasty!

7/10/15: On the Illusion of Financial Stability

IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report for October 2015 is out, titled, predictably “Vulnerabilities, Legacies, and Policy Challenges: Risks Rotating to Emerging Markets”.

It is a hefty read, but some key points are the following.

“Th e Federal Reserve is poised to raise interest rates as the preconditions for liftoff are nearly in place. This increase should help slow the further buildup of excesses in financial risk taking.” As if this is something new… albeit any conjecture that the Fed move will somehow take out some of the risks built up over years of aggressive priming of the liquidity pump is a bit, err… absurd. The IMF is saying risk taking will slow down, not abate.

“Partly due to con fidence in the European Central Bank’s (ECB’s) policies, credit conditions are improving and credit demand is picking up. Corporate sectors are showing tentative signs of improvement that could spawn increased investment and economic risk taking, including in the United States and Japan, albeit from low levels.” So, as before, don’t expect a de-risking, expect slower upticks in risks. The bubbles won’t be popping, or even deflating… they will be inflating at a more gradual pace.

All of which should give us that warm sense of comfort.

Meanwhile, “risks continue to rotate toward emerging markets, amid greater market liquidity risks.” In other words, now’s the turn of EMs to start pumping in cash, as the Fed steps aside.

In summary, therefore, that which went on for years will continue going on. The shovel will change, the proverbial brown stuff will remain the same.

Still, at the very least, the IMF is more realistic than the La-La gang of european politicians and investors. Here are some warning signs:

1. “Legacy issues from the crisis in advanced economies. High public and private debt in advanced economies and remaining gaps in the euro area architecture need to be addressed to consolidate financial stability, and avoid political tensions and headwinds to confidence and growth. In the euro area, addressing remaining sovereign and banking vulnerabilities is still a challenge.” You wouldn’t know that much, but the idea of rising rates and rising cost of funding has that cold steely feel to it when you think of your outstanding mortgage…
2. “Weak systemic market liquidity… poses a challenge in adjusting to new equilibria in markets and the wider economy. Extraordinarily accommodative policies have contributed to a compression of risk premiums across a range of markets including sovereign bonds and corporate credit, as well as a compression of liquidity and equity risk premiums. While recent market developments have unwound some of this compression, risk premiums could still rise further.” Wait a second here. We had years of unprecedented money printing by the Central Banks around the world. And we have managed to inflate a massive bubble in bonds markets on foot of that. But liquidity is still ‘challenged’? Oh dear… but what about all this ‘credibility’ that the likes of ECB have raised over the recent programmes? Does it not count for anything when it comes to systemic liquidity?..
3. The system is far from shocks-proof, again contrary to what we heard during this Summer from European dodos populating the Eurogroup. “Without the implementation of policies to ensure successful normalization, potential adverse shocks or policy missteps could trigger an abrupt rise in market risk premiums and a rapid erosion of policy con fidence. Shocks may originate in advanced or emerging markets and, combined with unaddressed system vulnerabilities, could lead to a global asset market disruption and a sudden drying up of market liquidity in many asset classes. Under these conditions, a signifi cant—even if temporary— mispricing of assets may ensue, with negative repercussions on fi nancial stability.”

In summary, then, lots done, nothing achieved: we wasted trillions in monetary policy firepower and the system is still prone to exogenous and endogenous shocks.

“In… an adverse scenario, substantially tighter fi nancial conditions could stall the cyclical recovery and weaken confi dence in medium-term growth prospects. Low nominal growth would put pressure on debt-laden sovereign and private balance sheets, raising credit risks.

• Emerging markets would face higher global risk premiums and substantial capital out flows, putting particular pressure on economies with domestic imbalances. 
• Corporate default rates would rise, particularly in China, raising fi nancial system strains, with implications for growth.
• Th ese events would lead to a reappearance of risks on sovereign balance sheets, especially in Europe’s vulnerable economies, and the emergence of an adverse feedback loop between corporate and sovereign risks in emerging markets. 
• As a result, aggregate global output could be as much as 2.4 percent lower by 2017, relative to the baseline. This implies lower but still positive global growth.”

Note, the IMF doesn’t even mention in this adverse scenario what happens to households up to their necks in debt, e.g. those in Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, and so on.

So let’s take a look at a handy IMF map plotting their own assessments of the financial systems stability in October 2015 report compared to April 2015 report. Do note that April 2015 report covers the period right before the ECB deployed its famed, fabled and all-so-credible (per IMF) QE.

Just take a look at the lot. Market & liquidity risks are up (not down), Risk Appetite is down. Macroeconomic risks improved, but everything else remains the same. That is a picture of no real achievement of any significant variety, regardless of what the IMF tells us. Worse, IMF analysis shows that risk appetite deteriorated across all 3 sub-metrics and as chart below shows, market & liquidity conditions have deteriorated across all 4 sub-metrics.

Meanwhile (Chart below), save for household risks, all other credit-related risks worsened too.

Meanwhile, markets are sustained by debt. That’s right: stock prices remain driven by debt-funded net equity buybacks and domestic acquisitions:

Meanwhile, Government bonds are in a massive bubble territory, especially for the little champions of the Euro:

You can see the extent of IMF’s thinking on the topic of just how bad the financial assets bubbles have grown in the following post.

The basic core of the IMF analysis is that although everything was made better, nothing is really much better. In the world of financial stability fetishists, that is like saying we have a steady state of no steady state. In the world of those of us living in the real economy, that is like saying all that cash pumped into the markets over the last seven years and across the globe has been largely wasted. 

16/7/2012: GFSR July 2012 - more alarm bells for European banks

IMF published Global Financial Stability Report update for June 2012, titled “Intense Financial Risks: Time for Action”

Per report: “Risks to financial stability have increased since the April 2012 Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR).

• Sovereign yields in southern Europe have risen sharply amid further erosion of the investor base.
• Elevated funding and market pressures pose risks of further cuts in peripheral euro area credit.
• The measures agreed at the recent European Union (EU) leaders’ summit provide significant steps to address the immediate crisis. Aside from supportive monetary and liquidity policies, the timely implementation of the recently agreed measures, together with further progress on banking and fiscal unions, must be a priority.
• Uncertainties about the asset quality of banks’ balance sheets must be resolved quickly, with capital injections and restructurings where needed.
•  Growth prospects in other advanced countries and emerging markets have also weakened, leaving them less able to deal with spillovers from the euro area crisis or to address their own home-grown fiscal and financial vulnerabilities. 
•  Uncertainties on the fiscal outlook and federal debt ceiling in the United States present a latent risk to financial stability."

Aside from the headlines, some interesting points from the report are:

• Market conditions worsened significantly in May and June, with measures of financial market stress reverting to, and in some cases surpassing, the levels seen during the worst period in November last year.  (see Figure 1)

•   The 3-year LTROs helped support demand for peripheral sovereign debt but that positive effect has waned. Private capital outflows continued to erode the foreign investor base in Italy and Spain (see Figures 3 and 4)

An interesting point on Euro area banking sector [emphasis mine]: “Notwithstanding the ample liquidity provided by the ECB’s refinancing operations, funding conditions for many peripheral banks and firms have deteriorated. Interbank conditions remain strained, with very limited activity in unsecured term markets, and liquidity hoarding by core euro area banks. Bank bond issuance has dropped off precipitously, with little investor demand even at higher interest rates.

“Banks in the euro area periphery have had to turn to the ECB to replace lost funding support, as cross-border wholesale funding dried up, and deposit outflows continue. The April 2012 GFSR noted that EU banks are under pressure to cut back assets, due to funding strains and market pressures, as well as to longer-term structural and regulatory drivers. The sharp reduction in bank balance sheets in the fourth quarter of 2011 continued, albeit at a slower pace, in the first quarter of 2012.

Growth in euro area private sector credit diverged significantly. While credit has contracted in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, it has remained more stable in some core countries.

Survey data on bank lending conditions show that credit supply remains tight, albeit less so than at the end of 2011, but that demand has also weakened more recently.

Deleveraging is also a concern for many peripheral corporations, given their historic dependence on bank funding and the risk that credit downgrades and diminished investor appetite could drive borrowing costs higher, even for high credit quality issuers.”

Now, here’s an interesting point not raised in the GFSR, but linked to the above observations: equities issuance accounts for roughly 55% of total corporate capital in US and EU. However, because the US corporates issue more bonds-backed debt than their EU counterparts, banks lending accounts for 40% of the European corporate funds raised, against 20% in the US. Which means that banks credit is about twice more important in Europe than in the US in terms of funding corporate capex. In fact, recent research from BCA clearly links US corporates ability to raise direct market funding by-passing banks to faster economic recovery in the US than in EU or Japan.

Add to this equation that European banks are worse capitalized than their US counterparts and that they are more leveraged than their US counterparts and you have a bleak prospect for the EU economy. BCA recently estimated that to bring Euro zone banks’ capital ratios to the levels comparable with the US average, the largest EU banks will have to raise some USD900 billion worth of new capital or cut their assets base by a whooping USD 9 trillion.

But wait, there’s more – you’ve heard about the latest report in the WSJ that Mario Draghi proposed to bail-in senior bondhodlers in Spanish banks? Much of the Irish commentary on this was positive, suggesting that Ireland is now in line for a retrospective deal from the ECB to recover some of the funds we paid to senior bondholders in Anglo and INBS. Setting aside the ‘wishful thinking’ nature of such comments – look at Draghi’s idea implications for EU economic activity. If bail-in does make it to the policy tool of European authorities, funding for the EA17 banks will only become more expensive in the medium and long term (risk premium on ‘bail-in probability’), which, in turn will mean even less credit for corporates, which will mean even less capex, and thus even lower prospect of recovery.

You know the story – pull one end of the carriage out of the quicksand pit, the other end sinks deeper… Let me quote BCA: “In Japan, credit contraction lasted well over nine years in the aftermath of the asset bubble bust. During that time, deflation prevailed and economic growth averaged a measly 0.5% annual pace.” Much of hope for Europe then? Not really. Recall that Japan had aggressive fiscal and monetary policies at its disposal plus booming global markets when it was undergoing credit bust. We, however, have psychotic monetary policy, no fiscal policy room and are running debt deflation cycle amidst global economic slowdown.

IMF is also on the note here: “Policymakers must resolve the uncertainty about bank asset quality and support the strengthening of banks’ balance sheets. Bank capital or funding structures in many institutions remain weak and insufficient to restore market confidence. In some cases, bank recapitalizations and restructurings need to be pursued, including through direct equity injections from the ESM into weak but viable banks…”

2/4/2012: Two studies on Global Financial Crisis

An interesting analysis of the International Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 from Gary Gorton and Andrew Metrick, both Yale and NBER just out - see link here. Worth a read and contrasting with Taleb's excellent paper on same (earlier work than that of Gordon and Metrick) here.

11/1/2012: Great Moderation or Great Delusion

A recent (December 2011) paper published by CEPR offers a very interesting analysis of the macroeconomic risks propagation in the current crisis. The paper, titled Great Moderation or Great Mistake: Can rising confidence in low macro-risk explain the boom in asset prices? (CEPR DP 8700) by Tobias Broer and Afroditi Kero looks at the evidence on whether the period of Great Moderation in macroeconomic volatility during the period from the mid-1980s (the decline in macroeconomic volatility that is unprecedented in modern history) had an associated impact on the rise of asset prices that accompanied this period, setting the stage for the ongoing crash.

In recent literature, this rise in asset prices, and the crash that followed, have both been attributed to "overconfidence in a benign macroeconomic environment of low volatility" or to excessively optimistic expectations of investors that the lengthy period of macroeconomic stability and upward trending is the 'new normal'. 

The study introduced learning about the persistence of volatility regimes in a standard asset pricing model of investor decision making. "It shows that the fall in US macroeconomic volatility since the mid-1980s only leads to a relatively small increase in asset prices when investors have full information about the highly persistent, but not permanent, nature of low volatility regimes." In other words, in the rational expectations setting with no errors in judgement and perfect foresight (investors are aware that volatility reductions are temporary), there is no bubble forming.

However, when investors "infer the persistence of low volatility from empirical evidence" (in other words when knowledge is imperfect and there is a probabilistic scenario under which the moderation can be permanent, then "Bayesian learning can deliver a strong rise in asset prices by up to 80%. Moreover, the end of the low volatility period leads to a strong and sudden crash in prices."

Specifically, calibrated model generates pre-collapse rise in asset prices of 77% and overvaluation of assets by 79% over the case of no learning. The subsequent collapse of asset prices is 84% in the case of imperfect information learning.

A pretty nice result! 

07/11/2011: Don't blame 'Johnny the Foreigner' for Western markets collapse

Global current account imbalances have been at the forefront of policy blame game going on across the EU and the US. In particular, the argument goes, savings glut in net exporting (mostly Asian) economies was the driving force behind low cost of investment flows around the world, producing a credit creation bubble via low interest rates. The deficit countries - the US, EU etc - have thus seen easing of lending conditions and world interest rates fell. The credit boom, therefore, was fueled by these savings surpluses, increasing risk loading on investment books of banks and other lenders and investors in the advanced economies.

Much of this orthodoxy is rarely challenged, so convenient is the premise that it is the Chinese and Indians, etc are to be blamed for what has transpired in the West. The mechanics of the process appear to be straight forward with current account imbalances going the same way as the causality argument - from surpluses in the East to deficits in the West.

A recent paper from the Bank for International Settlements, authored by Claudio Borio and Piti Disyatat and titled "Global imbalances and the financial crisis: Link or no link?" (BIS WP 346, May 2011), however, presents a very robust counter point to the orthodox view.

According to authors, "The central theme of the Excess Savings (ES) story hinges on two hypotheses: 

(i) net capital flows from current account surplus countries to deficit ones helped to finance credit booms in the latter; and 

(ii) a rise in ex ante global saving relative to ex ante investment in surplus countries depressed world interest rates, particularly those on US dollar assets, in which much of the surpluses are seen to have been invested. 

Authors' objection to the first hypothesis is that "by construction, current accounts and net capital flows reveal little about financing. They capture changes in net claims on a country arising from trade in real goods and services and hence net resource flows. But they exclude the underlying changes in gross flows and their contributions to existing stocks, including all the transactions involving only trade in financial assets, which make up the bulk of cross-border financial activity. As such, current accounts tell us little about the role a country plays in international borrowing, lending and financial intermediation, about the degree to which its real investments are financed from abroad, and about the impact of cross-border capital flows on domestic financial conditions." In other words, looking at current account deficits and surpluses, tell us little, in authors' view, about the financial flows that are allegedly being caused by these very current account imbalances.

This kinda makes sense. Imagine a MNC producing goods in country A, selling them to country B. Current account will record surplus to A and deficit to B. But the MNC might invest proceedings in country C via a fourth location, country D. Net current account position becomes indeterminate by these flows. Thus, per authors, "in assessing global financing patterns, it is sometimes helpful to move away from the residency principle, which underlies the balance- of-payments statistics, to a perspective that consolidates operations of individual firms across borders. By looking at gross capital flows and at the salient trends in international banking activity, we document how financial vulnerabilities were largely unrelated to – or, at the least, not captured by – global current account imbalances."

The problem arises because in traditional economics framework, savings (income or output not consumed in the economy) is investment. But in the real world, investment is not saving, but rather financing - a "cash flow concept… including through borrowing". Thus, per authors', "the financial crisis reflected disruptions in financing channels, in borrowing and lending patterns, about which saving and investment flows are largely silent." So ignoring the difference between the savings and investment financing, the current account hypothesis ignores the very nature of imbalances it is trying to model.

With respect to the second hypothesis, "the balance between ex ante saving and ex ante investment is best regarded as determining the natural, not the market, interest rate. The interest rate that prevails in the market at any given point in time is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. It reflects the interplay between the policy rate set by central banks, market expectations about future policy rates and risk premia, as affected by the relative supply of financial assets and the risk perceptions and preferences of economic agents. It is thus closely related to the markets where financing, borrowing and lending take place. By contrast, the natural interest rate is an unobservable variable commonly assumed to reflect only real factors, including the balance between ex ante saving and ex ante investment, and to deliver equilibrium in the goods market. Saving and investment affect the market interest rate only indirectly, through the interplay between central bank policies and economic agents’ portfolio choices. While it is still possible for that interplay to guide the market rate towards the natural rate over any given period, we argue that this was not the case before the financial crisis. We see the unsustainable expansion in credit and asset prices (“financial imbalances”) that preceded the crisis as a sign of a significant and persistent gap between the two rates. Moreover, since by definition the natural rate is an equilibrium phenomenon, it is hard to see how market rates roughly in line with it could have been at the origin of the financial crisis."

In other words, the second hypothesis above confuses the observed market cost of capital - interest rates charged in the market - for the equilibrium natural rates that prevail in theory of balanced goods and services flows. The latter do not really exist in the market and cannot be referenced in investment decisions, but are useful only as benchmarks for long term analysis. Natural rates are "better suited to barter economies with frictionless trades" while the market rates are best suited to analyzing "a monetary economy, especially one in which credit creation takes place". And the market rates are driven by largely domestic (investment domicile) regulation, monetary policies, market structure, etc. In other words, market rates are caused by the US, EU etc policies and environments and not by Chinese trade surpluses.

The main conclusion from the study is that while current accounts do matter in economic sustainability analysis, "in promoting global financial stability, policies to address current account imbalances cannot be the priority. Addressing directly weaknesses in the international monetary and financial system is more important. The roots of the recent financial crisis can be traced to a global credit and asset price boom on the back of aggressive risk-taking. Our key hypothesis is that the international monetary and financial system lacks sufficiently strong anchors to prevent such unsustainable booms, resulting in what we call “excess elasticity”."

The former means, frankly speaking, that bashing China et al is not a good path to achieving investment markets stability and sustainability. The latter means that hammering out a new, more robust risk pricing infrastructure back at home, in the advanced economies, is a good path to delivering more resilient investment markets in the future. No easy "Johnny the Foreigner made me do it" way out for the West, folks.