15/4/17: Unconventional monetary policies: a warning

Just as the Fed (and now with some grumbling on the horizon, possibly soon, ECB) tightens the rates, the legacy of the monetary adventurism that swept across both advanced and developing economies since 2007-2008 remains a towering rock, hard to climb, impossible to shift.

Back in July last year, Claudio Borio, of the BIS, with a co-author Anna Zabai authored a paper titled “Unconventional monetary policies: a re-appraisal” that attempts to gauge at least one slope of the monetarist mountain.

In it, the authors “explore the effectiveness and balance of benefits and costs of so-called “unconventional” monetary policy measures extensively implemented in the wake of the financial crisis: balance sheet policies (commonly termed “quantitative easing”), forward guidance and negative policy rates”.

The authors reach three main conclusions:

1. “there is ample evidence that, to varying degrees, these measures have succeeded in influencing financial conditions even though their ultimate impact on output and inflation is harder to pin down”. Which is sort of like telling a patient that instead of a cataract surgery he got a lobotomy, but now that he is awake and out of the coma, everything is fine. Why? Because the monetary policy was not supposed to trigger financial conditions improvements. It was supposed to deploy such improvements in order to secure real economic gains.
2. “the balance of the benefits and costs is likely to deteriorate over time”. Which means that the full cost of the monetary adventurism will be greater that the currently visible distortions suggest. And it will be long run.
3. “the measures are generally best regarded as exceptional, for use in very specific circumstances. Whether this will turn out to be the case, however, is doubtful at best and depends on more fundamental features of monetary policy frameworks”. Wait, what? Ah, here it is explained somewhat better: “They were supposed to be exceptional and temporary – hence the term “unconventional”. They risk becoming standard and permanent, as the boundaries of the unconventional are stretched day after day.”

You can see the permanence emerging in the trends (either continuously expanding or flat) when it comes to simply looking at the Central Banks’ balance sheets:

And the trend in terms of instrumentation:

The above two charts and the rest of Borio-Zabai analysis simply paints a picture of a sugar addicted kid who locked himself in a candy store. Good luck depriving him of that ‘just the last one, honest, ma!’ candy…

3/1/17: Euro growth greets 2017 with a bit of a bang

December marked another month of rising economic activity indicator for the euro area. Eurocoin, a leading growth indicator published by Banca d’Italia and CEPR notched up to 0.59 from 0.45 in November, implying annualised growth rate of 2.38 percent - the strongest growth signal in 67 months. It is worth remembering that in 2Q and 3Q 2016, real GDP growth slumped from 0.5% q/q recorded in 4Q 2015 - 1Q 2016 to 0.3% in Q2-Q3 2016. Latest 4Q 2016 reading for Eurocoin implies growth rate of around 0.47 percent, slightly below 1Q 2016 levels, but above the 0.31% average for the current expansionary cycle (from 2Q 2013 on).

Charts below illustrate these dynamics

Cyclical trends in growth rates currently imply ECB policy rate mispricing of around 2.0-2.5 percentage points (see chart below).

Meanwhile, inflationary dynamics, based on 12mo MA, suggest current monetary policy environment providing only a weak support to the upside.

The growth dynamics over the last 12 months are not exactly convincing. Even at currently above 2Q and 3Q forecast for 4Q 2016, FY 2016 growth is coming in at 1.58% annualised, against FY2015-2016 growth of 1.65%. Overall, this environment is unlikely to drive significant changes in ECB policy forward, as Frankfurt will continue to attempt supporting growth even if inflation ticks up to 0.4-0.5% q/q range for 12 months moving average basis.

21/9/16: BOJ New (non) Bazuka

A bit more on BOJ 'inverse' Twist here: http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2016-09-21-Banco-do-Japao-lanca-mao-de-nova-bazuca.

21/9/16: BOJ & Fed: Surprises at the End of Policy Line?

My comment for Portugal's Expresso on Bank of Japan and U.S. Fed rate setting meetings (comment prior to both): http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2016-09-20-Mercados-nao-esperam-subida-de-juros-nos-Estados-Unidos

English version:

With Bank of Japan clearly running out of assets to buy to sustain its continued efforts to further ease money supply, the Bank’s September 20th meeting is likely to be more significant from the markets perspective than the Fed’s. Back in July, Bank of Japan initiated a comprehensive review of its current policy measures. This move was based on two key pressures faced by Tokyo: the complete lack of monetary policy effectiveness and the shortages of assets eligible for BOJ purchases, still remaining in the markets.

My suspicion is that BOJ is likely to go for the reversal of the Fed’s Operation Twist, buying - as Washington did in 1961 and 2011 - shorter maturity bonds. In 2011, the Fed opted to buy longer-term debt and selling short term bonds. The Fed objective back then was to flatten the yield curve. Bank of Japan today is more desperate to see steepening in maturity curve instead. Paired with deeper foray into negative deposit rates territory, such an Inverse Twist move is probably the likeliest outrun of the current BOJ policy debate, with both policy changes carrying a probability of around 60-70 percent for September 20th meeting. On a longer odds side, expansion of volumes of purchases of bonds (doing more of the same option) for BOJ, in my opinion carries a probability of just 30-40 percent.

BOJ announcement of new policies is potentially more important to the global markets than the Fed’s, in the short run, because BOJ policy options are pretty much similar to those of the ECB, and because Tokyo faces a greater urgency to move this time around. Across the bonds markets, in recent months, there has been an increasing sense that ultra-aggressive monetary policies (those led by BOJ and ECB) have lost their effectiveness just at the time when the central bankers are rapidly running out of option to produce further monetary stimulus without engaging in an outright helicopter money creation. At the same time, as monetary policy effectiveness declined, markets reliance on central banks pumping more and more liquidity into the global financial system is rising as economic fundamentals stubbornly refusing to support current markets valuations in both equities and bonds.


Fed’s rate setting meeting, coming hours after Bank of Japan’s one, will be less predictable and has the capacity to take markets off guard. Prevailing market consensus is that the Fed will simply amplify its extremely moderate hawkish position, signalling once again the growing consensus toward a rate rise after the November Presidential election. In my view, this is the most probable outrun with a probability of around 75 percent. However, given the signs of strengthening economy over 3Q 2016, and the early indications of improving inflationary outlook on foot of August figures, the Fed might surprise with a 25 bps hike in base rates - a low probability (roughly 25%) event. On the ‘hold policy’ side, there has been some disappointing recent economic releases, with a decline in retail sales, flat producer prices inflation and a large drop in industrial production. These, alongside the political cycle, weigh heavily on the probability of a rate hike this week.


The key to the September rates outlook and the markets dynamics will be the twin combination of BOJ and Fed moves. Dovish Fed, alongside further aggressive expansion of Japan’s monetary policy will serve as a forward signal for the ECB to boost its own asset purchasing programme. This is a more likely outcome of Wednesday news flow, given the conditions in the domestic economies and in the global trade environment. Any surprises on the side of the Fed or BOJ deviating from dovish stands will likely be interpreted by the markets as a trigger for bonds sell-off and will also be negative for share prices.

19/3/16: Shares Buy-Backs: The Horror Show of QE Cash Excesses is Back

Remember the meme of the ‘recovery’?

The story of years of rising shares buy-backs by corporate desperate to do something / anything with all the debt they could get their hands on from the lending banks, whilst having no interest in investing any of these loans in real activity.

Well, back at the end of 2011 and the start of 2014, pumped up on hopium  of the so-called imminent recovery in global demand, we witnessed two dips in shares buy-backs, with resulting volatility going the flat trend taking us through some 12 months before lifting off the whole circus to new highs.

Source: @soberlook

And as you can see, the same momentum is now back. Shares buy-backs are booming once again, almost reaching all time highs of 2007. Thus, the toxic scenario whereby companies use cheap credit (QE-funded) to leverage themselves only to fund shares buybacks and not to fund new investment - that vicious cycle of leverage risk and wealth destruction - is open us once again.

Note: I have been tracking the topic on this blog, covering few months back the link between buybacks and lack of corporate capex: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/11/111115-take-buyback-pill-us-corporates.html.

3/3/16: Hitting Record Deflationary Expectations & Waves of Monetary Activism

In a fully-repaired world of the global economy...

Source: Bloomberg

Per SocGen, thus, all the QE and monetary activism have gone pretty much nowhere, as deflationary expectations are hitting all-time record levels. And that with the U.S. inflationary readings coming in relatively strong (see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-03/socgen-global-deflationary-fears-just-hit-an-all-time-high).

Which might be a positive thing today, but can turn into a pesky problem tomorrow. Why? Because U.S. inflationary firming up may be a result of the past monetary policy mismatches between the Fed and the rest of the world. If so, we are witnessing not a structural return to 'normalcy' but a simple iteration of a vicious cycle, whereby competitive devaluations, financial repressions and monetary easing waves simply transfer liquidity surpluses around the world, cancelling each other out when it comes to global growth.

Give that possibility a thought...

28/2/16: ECB in March: A Thaw or a Spring Blizzard?

My comment on what to expect from the ECB in March for Expresso http://en.calameo.com/books/004629676f86bc6c6796a.

As usual, full comment in English here:

While the transmission mechanism has been improving in recent months across the euro area, leading to stronger lending conditions across the common currency area and a wider range of the member states' economies, inflationary dynamics remained extremely weak, even when stripping out the effects of oil and other commodities prices. As the result, ECB continues to see inflation as the key target and is likely to intensify its efforts to boost price formation mechanism.

Thus, despite all the ECB efforts, inflation remains stubbornly low and even slipping back toward zero in more recent data prints. Improved lending is not sufficient to create a major capex boost on the ground, weighing heavily on growth dynamics. Lower costs of borrowing for the euro area governments, while providing significant room for fiscal manoeuvre, is simply not sufficient to sustain a robust recovery. About the only functioning side of the monetary policy to-date has been the devaluation of the euro vis a vis the US dollar - a dynamic more influenced by the Fed policy stance than by the ECB alone.

My expectation is that the ECB will cut its deposit rate to -40 bps (a cut of 10 basis points on current) with a strong chance that such a cut can be even deeper. We can further expect some announcement on an extension of the QE programme beyond the end of 1H 2017.

The key problem, however, is that the ECB is also becoming more and more aware of the evidence that past QE measures in Japan, the UK, the euro area and across Europe ex-Euro area have failed to deliver a sufficient demand side boost to these economies. Thus, in recent months, the ECB has been increasing rhetorical pressure on member states governments to engage in supply side stimuli. Unfortunately, this too is a misguided effort.

In the present conditions, characterised by markets uncertainty, heavy debt overhangs and mis-allocated investment on foot of previous QE rounds, neither supply nor demand sides of the policy equation hold a promise of repairing the euro area economy. In addition, accelerated QE will likely feed through to the markets via higher volatility and possible liquidity tightening (bid-ask spreads widening, fear of scarcity of high quality government bonds and uncertainty over viability of the current monetary policy course).

17/2/16: The Four Horsemen Of Economic Apocalypse Are Here

Recent media and analysts coverage of the global economy, especially that of the advanced economies has focused on the rising degree of uncertainty surrounding growth prospects for 2016 and 2017. Much of the analysis is shlock, tending to repeat like a metronome the cliches of risk of ’monetary policy errors’ (aka: central banks, read the Fed, raising rates to fast and too high), or ‘emerging markets rot’ (aka: slowing growth in China), or ‘energy sector drag’ (aka: too little new investment into oil).

However, the real four horsemen of the economic apocalypse are simply too big of the themes for the media to grasp. And, unlike ‘would be’ uncertainties that are yet to materialise, these four horsemen have arrived and are loudly banging on the castle of advanced economies gates.

The four horsemen of growth apocalypse are:

1. Supply side secular stagnation (technology-driven productivity growth and total factor productivity growth flattening out);
2. Demand side secular stagnation (demographically driven slump in global demand for ‘stuff’) (note I covered both extensively, but here is a post summing the two: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/10/41015-secular-stagnation-and-promise-of.html)
3. Debt overhang (the legacy of boom, bust and post-bust adjustments, again covered extensively on this blog); and
4. Financial fragility (see http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/19116-after-crisis-is-there-light-at.html)

In this world, sub-zero interest rates don’t work, fiscal policies don’t work and neither supply, nor demand-side economics hold any serious answers. Evidence? Central bankers are now fully impotent to drive growth, despite having swallowed all monetary viagra they can handle. Meanwhile, Government are staring at debt piles so big and bond markets so touchy, any serious upward revision in yields can spell disaster for some of the largest economies in the world. More evidence? See this: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/10/101015-imf-honey-weve-japanified-world.html.

To give you a flavour: consider the ‘stronger’ economic fortress of the U.S. where the Congressional Budget Office latest forecast is that the budget deficit will rise from 2.5 percent of GDP in 2015 to 3.7 percent by 2020. None of this deficit expansion will result in any substantive stimulus to the economy or to the U.S. capital stocks. Why? Because most of the projected budget deficit increases will be consumed by increased costs of servicing the U.S. federal debt. Debt servicing costs are expected to rise from 1.3 percent of GDP in 2015 to 2.3 percent in 2020. Key drivers to the upside: increasing debt levels (debt overhang), interest rate hikes (monetary policy), and lower remittances from the Federal Reserve to the U.S. Treasury (lower re-circulation of ‘profits and fees’). Actual discretionary spending that is approved through the U.S. Congress votes, excluding spending on the entitlement programs (Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security) will go down, from 6.5 percent of GDP in 2015 to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2020.

Boom! Debt overhang is a bitch, even if Paul Krugman thinks it is just a cuddly puppy…

Recently, one hedgie described the charade as follows: ”I like to use the analogy that the economic patient is riddled with cancer — central banks are applying a defibrillator, but there's only so much electricity the patient can take before it becomes a burnt-out corpse.” Pretty apt. (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/36-south-four-horsemen-2016-2?r=UK&IR=T)

My favourite researcher on the matter of financial stability, Claudio Borio of BIS agrees. In a recent speech (http://www.bis.org/speeches/sp160210_slides.pdf) he summed up the “symptoms of the malaise: the “ugly three”” in his parlance:

• Debt too high
• Productivity growth too low
• Policy room for manoeuvre too limited

Source: Borio (2016)

The fabled deleveraging that apparently has achieved so much is not dramatic even in the sector where it was on-going: non-financial economy, for advanced economies, and is actually a leveraging-up in the emerging markets:

Source: Borio (2016)

And these debt dynamics are doing nothing for corporate profitability:

Source: Borio (2016)

Worse, what the above chart does not show is what the effect on corporate profitability will interest rates reversions have (remember: there are two risks sitting here - risk 1 relating to central banks raising rates, risk 2 relating to banks - currently under severe pressure - raising retail margins).

Boris supplies a handy chart of how bad things are with productivity growth too:

Source: Borio (2016)

The above are part-legacy of the Global Financial Crisis. Boris specifies: Financial Crises tend to last much longer than business cycles, and “cause major and long-lasting damage to the real economy”. Loss in output sustained in Financial Crises are not transitory, but permanent and include “long-lasting damage to productivity growth”. Now, remember the idiot squad of politicians who kept droning on about ‘negative equity’ not mattering as long as people don’t move… well, as I kept saying: it does. Asset busts are hugely painful to repair. Boris: “Historically there is only a weak link between deflation and output growth” despite everyone running like headless chickens with ‘deflation’s upon us’ meme. But, there is a “much stronger link with asset price declines (equity and esp property)”, despite the aforementioned exhortations to the contrary amongst many politicos. And worse: there are “damaging interplay of debt with property price declines”. Which is to say that debt by itself is bad enough. Debt written against dodo property values is much worse. Hello, negative equity zombies.

But the whole idea about ‘restarting the economy’ using new credit boost is bonkers:

Source: Borio (2016)

Because, as that hedgie said above, the corpse can’t take much of monetary zapping anymore.

Hence time to wake up and smell the roses. Borio puts that straight into his last bullet point of his last slide:

Source: Borio (2016)

Alas, we have nothing to rely upon to replace that debt fuelled growth model either.

Knock… knock… “Who’s there?” “The four horsemen?” “The four horsemen of what?” “Of debt apocalypse, dumbos!”

2/1/16: QE for the People 2016

Back in March 2015, I have signed a group petition in support of the QE for the People idea of using monetary policy to directly inject funding into the economy via households' budgets. Since then the idea continued to gain traction and in December 2015 the campaign issued an in-depth analysis of the idea, and a renewed call for public and professional engagement.

14/12/15: ECB Rates & Policy Room

My comment on monetary policy space remaining for ECB post-December decision: Expresso (December 12, 2015, page 09):

7/12/15: Of Monetary Activism and Growth: CB Balancesheets vs Economies Balancesheets

There is much talk around two matters relating to the monetary policy expectations:

1. The 'normalisation' course allegedly pursued by the Fed (rates rises); and
2. The justification for (1) by references to the monetary policy-repaired economy, made wholesome once again thanks to the Central Banks' activism (see recent Janet Yellen speech on the subject here)

Except, of course, the second point is... err... questionable. For all the estimates of percentage points of growth uplifts and unemployment reductions delivered by the Fed-linked economics analysts, there are two simple facts stubbornly persisting out there:

Fact 1: U.S. (and European, and Japanese, and global) growth since the end of the Great Recession has been much slower than historical records for recoveries suggest; and

Fact 2: Fact 1 comes on foot of a historically unprecedented monetary expansions, that are, by far, not over yet.

Here are two charts on the second fact:

Now, observe: as of today, Big 4 CB balancesheets expanded almost 4-fold. By the end of 2017 (per BAML), projected balancesheets are expected to rise even further, by more than 4.5-fold. Both BOJ and ECB will be leading this latter stage of monetary easing - the two economies that are by far fairing the worst throughout the crisis, despite the fact that whilst the ECB adopted a more conservative stand in the earlier stages of the crisis, BOJ raced ahead of everyone else with Abenomics arrival.

In other words, since 2012 through 2015, CB balancesheets grew by more than 50 percent. Meanwhile, what happened to growth rates and growth expectations?

Which, sort of, suggests that all this 'normalisation' of growth under the monetary policies activism is... well... imaginary?..

3/12/15: Of Debt, Central Banks and History Repeats

Couple of facts via Goldman Sachs' recent research note:

1. Since the start of 2008, U.S. corporate debt has doubled and the interest burden rose 40 percent. Even as a share of EBITDA, debt servicing costs are up 30 percent, so U.S. corporations’ ability to service debt has declined despite the average interest rate paid by the U.S. corporate currently stands at around 4 percent, as opposed to 6 percent in 2008.
2. Much of this debt mountain has gone not to productive activities, but into shares buybacks and M&As. Per Goldman’s note: “…the changing nature of corporate balance sheets does raise the question, again, about the lack of organic growth and reinvestment post the crisis.”

And the net conclusion? “…the spectre of rising rates, potential global disinflation, declining operating profits and wider credit spreads continues to create near-term consternation for weak balance sheet stocks.”

Source: Business Insider

Oh dear… paging the Fed…

• Meanwhile, per IMF September 2015 Fiscal Monitor, Emerging Markets’ corporate debt rose from USD4 trillion in 2004 to USD18 trillion in 2014. Much of this debt is directly or indirectly linked to the U.S. dollar and, thus, Fed policy.

Oh dear… paging the Fed again…

And just in case you think these risks don’t matter, a quick reminder of what Jaime Caruana, head of the Bank for International Settlements, said back in July 2014 (emphasis mine):

• "Markets seem to be considering only a very narrow spectrum of potential outcomes. They have become convinced that monetary conditions will remain easy for a very long time, and may be taking more assurance than central banks wish to give… If we were concerned by excessive leverage in 2007, we cannot be more relaxed today… It may be the case that the debt is better distributed because some highly-indebted countries have deleveraged, like the private sector in the US or Spain, and banks are better capitalized. But there is also now more sensitivity to interest rate movements."

All of which translates, in his own words into

• "Overall, it is hard to avoid the sense of a puzzling disconnect between the markets’ buoyancy and underlying economic developments globally."

And as per current QE policies?

• "There is something strange about fighting debt by incentivizing more debt."

Which, of course, is the entire point of all QE and, thus, brings us to yet another ‘paging Fed moment’:

• "Policy does not lean against the booms but eases aggressively and persistently during busts. This induces a downward bias in interest rates and an upward bias in debt levels, which in turn makes it hard to raise rates without damaging the economy – a debt trap. …Systemic financial crises do not become less frequent or intense, private and public debts continue to grow, the economy fails to climb onto a stronger sustainable path, and monetary and fiscal policies run out of ammunition. Over time, policies lose their effectiveness and may end up fostering the very conditions they seek to prevent."

Now, take a look at the lengths to which ECB has played the Russian roulette with monetary policy so far: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/31215-85-v-52-of-duration-of-risk.html

3/12/15: Ifo's Sinn on Draghi's Monetary Acrobatics

Ifo hans Werner Sinn on ECB decision:

Predictable, and entertaining as ever... My view is expressed here and a more in-depth view of the monetary activism effectiveness will be coming soon in my Cayman Financial Review column. Hint: not much of evidence it has been working anywhere... 

10/11/15: Keiser Report from Kilkenomics 2016

My interview with Max Keiser and Stacy Herbert in Kilkenny :

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/216140/kilkenomics_where_comedy_meets_economics_constantin_gurdgiev__keiser_report/

Enjoy. (from 3:26 on).

11/10/15: Of Central Banks and Spoons in the Arctic

Much has been said recently about the need for normalisation in the policy rates environment (in plain English - the need to hike interest rates off zero bound) and much has been inked about the feasibility of such normalisation. So the latest G30 intervention on the subject is both banal and late in timing.

But, as posted by @Schuldensuehner a few minutes ago on twitter:

Which is basically telling us two things:

1. Talking of any normalisation, given the quantum of financial assets accumulated since 2007 by the Central Banks is about as realistic as talking about mining Mars for fresh water; and
2. Talking of anything, but the Central Banks, taking up the task of providing liquidity in the current environment is about as sensible as arming an ice-breaker with a spoon: sure it chips ice, but good luck making much of a progress.

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. 

28/8/15: Central Banks' Activism in a Chart

Having been out of contact due to work and summer break commitments, I will be updating the blog over the next few days with interesting bits of information that have been overlooked over the last 10 days or so. So stay tuned for numerous updates.

To start with, here is a picture of the Central Banks' monetary activism to-date:

Source: @Schuldensuehner 

The chart above sets 2005 = 1000 and indexes the uplift in Central Banks' balancesheets expansions: Fed almost x5.6 times; PBoC almost x6.4 times, ECB almost x2.3 times and heading toward x3.3 times under the ongoing QE, BoJ almost x2.1 times... not surprisingly, the old Fed 'put' is now pretty much every Central Bank's default option...

Much of this mountain of money printing has gone to grease the wheels of sovereign debt markets. Much of the resulting revaluation of financial assets is simply not sustainable under the premise of the Central Banks' 'puts' withdrawal (monetary tightening).

In simple terms, the ugly will get uglier and we have no idea if it will get any better thereafter.

17/8/15: Euro: The Land Where Growth Goes to Die

So we have had a massive QE - even prior the current one - by the ECB. And we are having a massive QE again, courtesy again, of the ECB. And the bond markets are running out of paper to shove into the… you've guessed it… the ECB. And the banks have been repaired. And we are being fed our daily soup of alphabet permutations (under the disguise of the European Union 'reforms' and policy initiatives): ESM, EFSF, EFS, OMT, EBU, CMU, GMU, TSCG, LTRO, TLTRO, MRO, you can keep going… And what we have to show for all of this?

2Q 2015 growth is at 0.3% q/q having previously posted 0.4% growth in both 4Q 2014 and 1Q 2015. This is, supposedly, the fabled 'accelerating recovery'.

So what do we have? Look at the grey lines in the chart above that mark period averages. Pre-euro period, GDP growth averaged 0.9% in quarterly terms. From 1Q 2001 through 4Q 2007 it averaged 0.5%. Toss out the period of the crisis when GDP was shrinking on average at a quarterly rate of 0.1% between 1Q 2008 and through 1Q 2013 and look at the recovery: from 2Q 2013 through 2Q 2015 Euro area economy was growing at an average quarterly rate of less than 0.27%.

Meanwhile, monetary policy is now stuck firmly in the proverbial sh*t corner since 2012:

You'd call it a total disaster, were it not for Japan being one even worse than the Euro area… and were it not for the nagging suspicion that all we are going to get out of this debacle is more alphabet soups of various 'harmonising solutions' to the crisis... which will get us to becoming a total disaster pretty soon. Keep soldering on...

8/7/15: ECB QE: Strong Monetary, Weak Real Impacts

My presentation on QE for today's hearing at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, the Houses of the Oireachtas.