18/6/20: Cheap Institutional Money: It's Supply Thingy

In a recent post, I covered the difference between M1 and MZM money supply, which effectively links money available to households and institutional investors for investment purposes, including households deposits that are available for investment by the banks (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/06/what-do-money-supply-changes-tell-us.html). Here, consider money instruments issuance to institutional investors alone:

Effectively, over the last 12 years, U.S. Federal reserve has pumped in some USD 2.6 trillion of cash into the financial asset markets in the U.S. These are institutional investors' money over and above direct asset price supports via Fed assets purchasing programs, indirect asset price supports via Fed's interest rates policies and QE measures aimed at suppression of government bond yields (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/05/21520-how-pitchforks-see-greatest.html). 

Any wonder we are in a market that is no longer making any sense, set against the economic fundamentals, where free money is available for speculative trading risk-free (https://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2020/06/8620-30-years-of-financial-markets.html)?

22/12/18: Millennials and Buffetts: It’s a VUCA Investment World

My August 2018 Economic Outlook for Manning Financial:


What unites Warren Buffett, Apple and the financially distressed generation of the Millennials? In one word: cash and preferences for safe haven assets. Consider three facts.

Financial Markets

One: at the start of August, Berkshire Hathaway Inc. gave Buffett more room to engage in stock buybacks, just as company cash holdings rose to USD111 billion at the end of 2Q 2018, marking the second highest quarterly cash reserves in history of the firm. This comes on foot of Buffett's recent statements that current stock markets valuations price Berkshire out of "virtually all deals", just as the company took its holdings of Apple stock from USD40.7 billion in 1Q 2018 filings to USD47.2 billion in 2Q filings. Historically, Berkshire and Buffett are known for their high risk, nearly contrarian, but fundamentals-anchored investments: a strategy for selecting companies that offer long term value and growth potential and going long big. Today, Buffett simply can’t find enough such companies in the markets. His call is to return earnings to shareholders instead of investing them in buying more shares.

Two: on August 2nd, Apple became the first private company in history to top USD1 trillion market valuation mark when company stock closed at above USD207.05 per share. Company's path to this achievement was based on far more than just a portfolio of great products. In fact, two key financial engineering factors in recent years have contributed to its phenomenal success: aggressive tax optimisation, and extremely active shares buybacks programme. In May 2018, the company pledged USD100 billion of its USD285 billion cash stash (accumulated primarily off-shore, in low tax jurisdictions such as Ireland, Jersey and in the Caribbean) for shares buybacks. As of end of July, it was already half way to that target. Apple is an industry leader in buybacks, accounting for close to 15 percent of all shares buybacks planned for 2018. But Apple is not alone. A study by the Roosevelt Institute released in August shows that U.S.-listed companies spent 60 percent of their net profits on stock buybacks between 2015-2017. And on foot of the USD1.5 trillion tax cuts bill passed by Congress in December 2017, buybacks are expected to top USD 800 billion this year alone, beating the previous historical record of USD 587 billion set in 2007. Whichever way you take the arguments, accumulation of tax optimisation-linked cash reserves, and aggressive use of shares buybacks have contributed significantly to the FAANGS (Facebook (FB), Amazon (AMZN), Apple (AAPL), Netflix (NFLX), and Alphabet (GOOG)) dominance over the global financial markets.


The Squeezed Generation

And this brings us to the third fact: the lure of cash in today's world of retail investment. If cash is where Warren Buffetts and Apples of the financial and corporate worlds are, it is quite rational that cash is where the new generation of retail investors will be. Per Bankrate.com July 2018 survey data, 1 in 3 American Millennials are favouring cash instruments (e.g. savings accounts and certificates of deposit) for investing their longer-term savings. In comparison, only 21 percent of Generation X investors who prefer cash instruments, and 16 percent for the Baby Boomers. American retail investors are predominantly focused on low-yielding, higher safety investment allocations. For example, recent surveys indicate that only 18 percent of all American investment portfolios earn non-negative real returns on their savings, and that these households are dominated by the Baby Boomers generation and the top 10 percent of earners. Amongst the Millennials, the percentage is even lower at 7.4 percent.

The conventional wisdom suggests that the reasons why Millennials are so keen on holding their investments in highly secure assets is the fear of market crashes inherited by their generation from witnessing the Global Financial Crisis. But the conventional wisdom is false, and this falsehood is too dangerous to ignore for all investors - small and large alike.

In reality, the Millennials scepticism about the risk-adjusted returns promised by the traditional asset classes - equities and bonds - is not misplaced, and dovetails neatly with what both the largest American corporates and the biggest global investors are doing. Namely, they are pivoting away from yield-focused investments, and toward safe havens. The reason we are not seeing this pivot reflected in depressed asset prices, yet is because there is a growing gap between strategic positioning of the Wall Street trading houses (all-in risky assets) and those investors who are, like Buffett, focusing on longer-term investment returns.


Overvalued Investment

In simple terms, the U.S. asset markets are grossly overvalued in terms of both current pricing (including short term forward projections), and longer term valuations (over 5 years duration).

The former is not difficult to illustrate. As recent markets research shows, all of the eight major market valuations ratios are signalling some extent of excessive optimism: the current S&P500 ratio to historical average, household equity allocation ratio, price/sales ratio, price/book value ratio, Tobin's Q ratio, the so-called Buffett Indicator or the total market cap of all U.S. stocks relative to the U.S. GDP, the dividend yield, the CAPE ratio and the unadjusted P/E ratio. Take Buffett's Indicator: normally, the markets are rationally bullish when the indicator is in the 70-80 percent range, and investors pivot away from equities, when the indicator hits 100 percent. Today, the indicator is close to 140 percent - a historical record.

But the longer run valuations are harder to pin down using markets-linked indices, because no one has a crystal ball as to where the markets and the listed companies might be in years to come. Which means that any analyst worth their salt should look at the macro-drivers for signals as to the future markets pressure points and upside opportunities.

Here, there are worrying signs.

In the last three decades, bankruptcy rates for older households have increased almost three-fold, according to the recent study, from the Consumer Bankruptcy Project (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3226574). This suggests that not all is well amongst the wealthiest retired generation, the Baby Boomers, who are currently holding the vastly disproportionate share of all risky assets in the economy. For example, 80 percent of Baby Boomers own property, accounting for roughly 65 percent of the overall housing markets available assets. All in, Baby Boomers have over 50.2 percent share of net household wealth. As they age, and as their healthcare costs rise, they will be divesting out of these assets at an increasing rate. This effect is expected to lead to a 3-3.5 percent reduction in the expected nominal returns to the pensions funds for the Generation X and the Millennials, per 2016 study by the U.S. Federal Reserve (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016080pap.pdf). The latter is, in part, the legacy of the 2007 Global Financial Crisis, which has resulted in an unprecedented collapse in wealth held by the American middle classes. Based on the report from the Minneapolis Federal Reserve (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/race-and-the-race-between-stocks-and-homes), current household wealth for the bottom 50 percent of U.S. households is at the lowest levels since the mid-1950s, while household wealth of the middle 40 percent of the U.S. households is comparable to where it was in 2001. In other words, nine out of ten U.S. households have not seen any growth in their wealth for at least 18 years now.

Over the same period of time, wages and incomes of those currently in middle and early stages of their careers, aka the Generation X and the Millennials, have stagnated, while their career prospects for the near future remain severely depressed by the longer in-the-job tenures of the previous generations.

June 2018 paper from the Opportunity and Inclusive Growth Institute, titled “Income and Wealth Inequality in America, 1949-2016” (https://www.minneapolisfed.org/institute/working-papers-institute/iwp9.pdf) documented the dramatic reallocation of purchasing power in the U.S. income across generations, from 1970 to 2015, with the share of total income earned by the bottom 50 percent dropping from 21.6 percent to 14.5 percent, while the top 10 percent share climbed from 30.7 percent to 47.6 percent. Share of wealth held in housing assets for the top 1 percent of earners currently stands at around 8.7 percent, with the remained held in financial assets and cash. For top 20 percent of income distribution, the numbers are more even at 28 percent of wealth in housing. Middle class distribution of wealth is completely reversed, with 62.5 percent held in the form of housing.

The problem is made worse by the fact that following the financial crash of 2007-2008, the U.S. Government failed to provide any meaningful support to struggling homeowners, focusing, just as European authorities did, on repairing the banks instead of households.


Markets Forward

What all of this means for the asset values going forward is that demographically, the economy is divided into the older and wealthier generation that is starting to aggressively consume their wealth, looking to sell their financial assets and leverage their housing stocks, and those who cannot afford to purchase these assets, facing lower incomes and no tradable equity. This is hardly a prescription for the bull markets in the long run.

In this environment, on a 5-10 years time horizon, holding cash and money markets instruments makes a lot more sense not because these instruments offer significant current returns, but because the expected upcoming asset price deflation will make cash and safe haven assets the new market king.

The same is apparent in the corporate decisions to use tax and regulatory changes to beef up their cash holdings and equity prices, as opposed to investing in new growth activities. Even inclusive of buybacks, and Mergers & Acquisitions in the corporate sector, aggregate investment as a share of GDP continues to slide decade after decade, as highlighted in the chart below.

CHART

What makes matters even worse is that until mid-2000s, the data for investment did not include R&D activities, normally classed as expenditure in years prior. Adjusting for M&As, buybacks and R&D allocations, aggregate investment in G7 economies has declined from 24.9 percent of GDP in the 1980s to around 16-17 percent in 2010-2018. In simple terms, neither the public nor the private sector in the largest advanced economies in the world are planning for investment-driven growth in the near future, out into 2025.

None of which should come as a surprise to those following my writings in recent years, including in these pages. Over the years, I have written extensively about the Twin Secular Stagnations Hypothesis - a proposition that the global economy has entered a structurally slower period of economic growth, driven by adverse demographics and shallower returns to technological innovation. What is new is that we are now witnessing the beginning of the demographics-driven investors' rotation out of risky assets and toward higher safety instruments. With time, this process is only likely to accelerate, leading to the structural reversal of the bull markets in risky assets and real estate.

19/12/18: From Goldilocks to Humpty-Dumpty Markets

As noted in the post above, I am covering the recent volatility and uncertainty in the financial markets for the Sunday Business Post : https://www.businesspost.ie/business/goldilocks-humpty-dumpty-markets-2018-433053.

Below is the un-edited version of the article:

2018 has been a tough year for investors. Based on the data compiled by the Deutsche Bank AG research team, as of November 2018, 65.7 percent of all globally-traded assets were posting annual losses in gross (non-risk adjusted) terms. This marks 2018 as the third worst year on record since 1901, after 1920 (67.6 percent) and 1994 (67.2 percent), as Chart 1 below illustrates. Adjusting Deutsche Bank’s data for the last thirty days, by mid-December 2018, 66.3 percent of all assets traded in the markets are now in the red on the annual returns basis.

CHART 1: Percentage of Assets with Negative Total Returns in Local Currency

Source: Deutsche Bank AG

Note: The estimates are based on a varying number of assets, with 30 assets included in 1901, rising to 70 assets in 2018

Of the 24 major asset classes across the Advanced Economies and Emerging Markets, only three, the U.S. Treasury Bills (+19.5% YTD through November 15), the U.S. Leveraged Loans (+7.45%), and the U.S. Dollar (+0.78%) offer positive risk-adjusted returns, based on the data from Bloomberg. S&P 500 equities are effectively unchanged on 2017. Twenty other asset classes are in the red, as shown in the second chart below, victims of either negative gross returns, high degree of volatility in prices (high risk), or both.


CHART 2: Risk-Adjusted Returns, YTD through mid-December 2018, percent

Source: Data from Bloomberg, TradingView, and author own calculations

Note: Risk-adjusted returns take into account volatility in prices. IG = Investment Grade, HY = High Yield, EM = Emerging Markets

The causes of this abysmal performance are both structural and cyclical.


Cyclical Worries

The cyclical side of the markets is easier to deal with. Here, concerns are that the U.S., European and global economies have entered the last leg of the current expansion cycle that the world economy has enjoyed since 2009 (the U.S. since 2010, and the Eurozone since 2014). Although the latest forecasts from the likes of the IMF and the World Bank indicate only a gradual slowdown in the economic activity across the world in 2019-2023, majority of the private sector analysts are expecting a U.S. recession in the first half of 2020, following a slowdown in growth in 2019. For the Euro area, many analysts are forecasting a recession as early as late-2019.

The key cyclical driver for these expectations is tightening of monetary policies that sustained the recovery post-Global Financial Crisis and the Great Recession. And the main forward-looking indicators for cyclical pressures to be watched by investors is the U.S. Treasury yield curve and the 10-year yield and the money velocity.

The yield curve is currently at a risk of inverting (a situation when the long-term interest rates fall below short-term interest rates). The 10-year yields are trading at below 3 percent marker – a sign of the financial markets losing optimism over the sustainability of the U.S. growth rates. Money velocity is falling across the Advanced Economies – a dynamic only partially accounted for by the more recent monetary policies.

CHART 3: 10-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Rate, January 2011-present, percent

Source: FRED database, Federal reserve bank of St. Louis. 

Structural Pains

While cyclical pressures can be treated as priceable risks, investors’ concerns over structural problems in the global economy are harder to assess and hedge.

The key concerns so far have been the extreme uncertainty and ambiguity surrounding the impact of the U.S. Presidential Administration policies on trade, geopolitical risks, and fiscal expansionism. Compounding factor has been a broader rise in political opportunism and the accompanying decline in the liberal post-Cold War world order.

The U.S. Federal deficit have ballooned to USD780 billion in the fiscal 2018, the highest since 2012. It is now on schedule to exceed USD1 trillion this year. Across the Atlantic, since mid-2018, a new factor has been adding to growing global uncertainty: the structural weaknesses in the Euro area financial services sector (primarily in the German, Italian and French banking sectors), and the deterioration in fiscal positions in Italy (since Summer 2018) and France (following November-December events). The European Central Bank’s pivot toward unwinding excessively accommodating monetary policies of the recent past, signaled in Summer 2018, and re-confirmed in December, is adding volatility to structural worries amongst the investors.

Other long-term worries that are playing out in the investment markets relate to the ongoing investors’ unease about the nature of economic expansion during 2010-2018 period. As evident in longer term financial markets dynamics, the current growth cycle has been dominated by one driver: loose monetary policies of quantitative easing. This driver fuelled unprecedented bubbles across a range of financial assets, from real estate to equities, from corporate debt to Government bonds, as noted earlier.

However, the same driver also weakened corporate balance sheets in Europe and the U.S. As the result, key corporate risk metrics, such as the degree of total leverage, the cyclically-adjusted price to earnings ratios, and the ratio of credit growth to value added growth in the private economy have been flashing red for a good part of two decades. Not surprisingly, U.S. velocity of money has been on a continuous downward trend from 1998, with Eurozone velocity falling since 2007. Year on year monetary base in China, Euro Area, Japan and United States grew at 2.8 percent in October 2018, second lowest reading since January 2016, according to the data from Yardeni Research.

Meanwhile, monetary, fiscal and economic policies of the first two decades of this century have failed to support to the upside both the labour and technological capital productivity growth. In other words, the much-feared spectre of the broad secular stagnation (the hypothesis that long-term changes in both demand and supply factors are leading to a structural long-term slowdown in global economic growth) remains a serious concern for investors. The key leading indicator that investors should be watching with respect to this risk is the aggregate rate of investment growth in non-financial private sector, net of M&As and shares repurchases – the rate that virtually collapsed in post-2008 period and have not recovered to its 1990s levels since.

The second half of 2018 has been the antithesis to the so-called ‘Goldolocks markets’ of 2014-2017, when all investment asset classes across the Advanced Economies were rising in valuations. At the end of 3Q 2018, U.S. stock markets valuations relative to GDP have topped the levels previously seen only in 1929 and 2000. Since the start of October, however, we have entered a harmonised ‘Humpty-Dumpty market’, characterised by spiking volatility, rising uncertainty surrounding the key drivers of markets dynamics. Adding to this high degree of coupling across various asset classes, the recent developments in global markets suggest a more structural rebalancing in investors’ attitudes to risk that is likely to persist into 2019.

23/10/16: Too-Big-To-Fail Banks: The Financial World 'Undead'

This is an un-edited version of my latest column for the Village magazine


Since the start of the Global Financial Crisis back in 2008, European and U.S. policymakers and regulators have consistently pointed their fingers at the international banking system as a key source of systemic risks and abuses. Equally consistently, international and domestic regulatory and supervisory authorities have embarked on designing and implementing system-wide responses to the causes of the crisis. What emerged from these efforts can be described as a boom-town explosion of regulatory authorities. Regulatory,  supervisory and compliance jobs mushroomed, turning legal and compliance departments into a new Klondike, mining the rich veins of various regulations, frameworks and institutions. All of this activity, the promise held, was being built to address the causes of the recent crisis and create systems that can robustly prevent future financial meltdowns.

At the forefront of these global reforms are the EU and the U.S. These jurisdictions took two distinctly different approaches to beefing up their respective responses to the systemic crises. Yet, the outrun of the reforms is the same, no matter what strategy was selected to structure them.

The U.S. has adopted a reforms path focused on re-structuring of the banks – with 2010 Dodd-Frank Act being the cornerstone of these changes. The capital adequacy rules closely followed the Basel Committee which sets these for the global banking sector. The U.S. regulators have been pushing Basel to create a common "floor" or level of capital a bank cannot go below. Under the U.S. proposals, the “floor” will apply irrespective of its internal risk calculations, reducing banks’ and national regulators’ ability to game the system, while still claiming the banks remain well-capitalised. Beyond that, the U.S. regulatory reforms primarily aimed to strengthen the enforcement arm of the banking supervision regime. Enforcement actions have been coming quick and dense ever since the ‘recovery’ set in in 2010.

Meanwhile, the EU has gone about the business of rebuilding its financial markets in a traditional, European, way. Any reform momentum became an excuse to create more bureaucratese and to engineer ever more elaborate, Byzantine, technocratic schemes in hope that somehow, the uncertainties created by the skewed business models of banks get entangled in a web of paperwork, making the crises if not impossible, at least impenetrable to the ordinary punters. Over the last 8 years, Europe created a truly shocking patchwork of various ‘unions’, directives, authorities and boards – all designed to make the already heavily centralised system of banking regulations even more complex.

The ‘alphabet soup’ of European reforms includes:

• the EBU and the CMU (the European Banking and Capital Markets Unions, respectively);
• the SSM (the Single Supervisory Mechanism) and the SRM (the Single Resolution Mechanism), under a broader BRRD (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive) with the DGS (Deposit Guarantee Schemes Directive);
• the CRD IV (Remuneration & prudential requirements) and the CRR (Single Rule Book);
• the MIFID/R and the MAD/R (enhanced frameworks for securities markets and to prevent market abuse);
• the ESRB (the European Systemic Risk Board);
• the SEPA (the Single Euro Payments Area);
• the ESA (the European Supervisory Authorities) that includes the EBA (the European Banking Authority);
• the MCD (the Mortgage Credit Directive) within a Single European Mortgage Market; the former is also known officially as CARRP and includes introduction of something known as the ESIS;
• the Regulation of Financial Benchmarks (such as LIBOR & EURIBOR) under the umbrella of the ESMA (the European Securities and Markets Authority), and more.

The sheer absurdity of the European regulatory epicycles is daunting.

Eight years of solemn promises by bureaucrats and governments on both sides of the Atlantic to end the egregious abuses of risk management, business practices and customer trust in the American and European banking should have produced at least some results when it comes to cutting the flow of banking scandals and mini-crises. Alas, as the recent events illustrate, nothing can be further from the truth than such a hypothesis.


America’s Rotten Apples

In the Land of the Free [from individual responsibility], American bankers are wrecking havoc on customers and investors. The latest instalment in the saga is the largest retail bank in the North America, Wells Fargo.

Last month, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) announced a $185 million settlement with the bank. It turns out, the customer-focused Wells Fargo created over two million fake accounts without customers’ knowledge or permission, generating millions in fraudulent fees.

But Wells Fargo is just the tip of an iceberg.

In July 2015, Citibank settled with CFPB over charges it deceptively mis-sold credit products to 2.2 million of its own customers. The settlement was magnitudes greater than that of the Wells Fargo, at $700 million. And in May 2015, Citicorp, the parent company that controls Citibank, pleaded guilty to a felony manipulation of foreign currency markets – a charge brought against it by the Justice Department. Citicorp was accompanied in the plea by another U.S. banking behemoth, JPMorgan Chase. You heard it right: two of the largest U.S. banks are felons.

And there is a third one about to join them. This month, news broke that Morgan Stanley was charged with "dishonest and unethical conduct" in Massachusetts' securities “for urging brokers to sell loans to their clients”.

Based on just a snapshot of the larger cases involving Citi, the bank and its parent company have faced fines and settlements costs in excess of $19 billion between the start of 2002 and the end of 2015. Today, the CFPB has over 29,000 consumer complaints against Citi, and 37,000 complaints against JP Morgan Chase outstanding.

To remind you, Citi was the largest recipient of the U.S. Fed bailout package in the wake of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, with heavily subsidised loans to the bank totalling $2.7 trillion or roughly 16 percent of the entire bailout programme in the U.S.

But there have been no prosecutions of the Citi, JP Morgan Chase or Wells Fargo executives in the works.


Europe’s Ailing Dinosaurs

The lavishness of the state protection extended to some of the most egregiously abusive banking institutions is matched by another serial abuser of rules of the markets: the Deutsche Bank. Like Citi, the German giant received heaps of cash from the U.S. authorities.

Based on U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) data, during the 2008-2010 crisis, Deutsche was provided with $354 billion worth of emergency financial assistance from the U.S. authorities. In contrast, Lehman Brothers got only $183 billion.

Last month, Deutsche entered into the talks with the U.S. Department of Justice over the settlement for mis-selling mortgage backed securities. The original fine was set at $14 billion – a levy that would effectively wipe out capital reserves cushion in Europe’s largest bank. The latest financial markets rumours are putting the final settlement closer to $5.4-6 billion, still close to one third of the bank’s equity value. To put these figures into perspective, Europe’s Single Resolution Board fund, designed to be the last line of defence against taxpayers bailouts, currently holds only $11 billion in reserves.

The Department of Justice demand blew wide open Deutsche troubled operations. In highly simplified terms, the entire business model of the bank resembles a house of cards. Deutsche problems can be divided into 3 categories: legal, capital, and leverage risks.

On legal fronts, the bank has already paid out some $9 billion worth of fines and settlements between 2008 and 2015. At the start of this year, the bank was yet to achieve resolution of the probe into currency markets manipulation with the Department of Justice. Deutsche is also defending itself (along with 16 other financial institutions) in a massive law suit by pension funds and other investors. There are on-going probes in the U.S. and the UK concerning its role in channelling some USD10 billion of potentially illegal Russian money into the West. Department of Justice is also after the bank in relation to the alleged malfeasance in trading in the U.S. Treasury market.

And in April 2016, the German TBTF (Too-Big-To-Fail) goliath settled a series of U.S. lawsuits over allegations it manipulated gold and silver prices. The settlement amount was not disclosed, but manipulations involved tens of billions of dollars.

Courtesy of the numerous global scandals, two years ago, Deutsche was placed on the “enhanced supervision” list by the UK regulators – a list, reserved for banks that have either gone through a systemic failure or are at a risk of such. This list includes no other large banking institution, save for Deutsche. As reported by Reuters, citing the Financial Times, in May this year, UK’s financial regulatory authority stated, as recently as this year, that “Deutsche Bank has "serious" and "systemic" failings in its controls against money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions”.

As if this was not enough, last month, a group of senior Deutsche ex-employees were charged in Milan “for colluding to falsify the accounts of Italy’s third-biggest bank, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA” (BMPS) as reported by Bloomberg. Of course, BMPS is itself in the need of a government bailout, with bank haemorrhaging capital over recent years and nursing a mountain of bad loans. One of the world’s oldest banks, the Italian ‘systemically important’ lender has been teetering on the verge of insolvency since 2008-2009.

All in, at the end of August 2016, Deutsche Bank had some 7,000 law suits to deal with, according to the Financial Times.

Beyond legal problems, Deutsche is sitting on a capital structure that includes billions of notorious CoCos – Contingent Convertible Capital Instruments. These are a hybrid form of capital instruments designed and structured to absorb losses in times of stress by automatically converting into equity. In short, CoCos are bizarre hybrids favoured by European banks, including Irish ‘pillar’ banks, as a dressing for capital buffers. They appease European regulators and, in theory, provide a cushion of protection for depositors. In reality, CoCos hide complex risks and can act as destabilising elements of banks balancesheets.

And Deutsche’s balancesheet is loaded with trillions worth of opaque and hard-to-value derivatives. At of the end of 2015, the bank held estimated EUR1.4 trillion exposure to these instruments in official accounts. A full third of bank’s assets is composed of derivatives and ‘other’ exposures, with ‘other’ serving as a financial euphemism for anything other than blue chip safe investments.

The Financial Undead

Eight years after the blow up of the global financial system we have hundreds of tomes of reforms legislation and rule books thrown onto the crumbling façade of the global banking system. Tens of trillions of dollars in liquidity and lending supports have been pumped into the banks and financial markets. And there are never-ending calls from the Left and the Right of the political spectrum for more Government solutions to the banking problems.

Still, the American and European banking models show little real change brought about by the crisis. Both, the discipline of the banks boards and the strategy pursued by the banks toward rebuilding their profits remain unaltered by the lessons from the crisis. The fireworks of political demagoguery over the need to change the banking to fit the demands of the 21st century roll on. Election after election, candidates compete against each other in promising a regulatory nirvana of de-risked banking. And time after time, as smoke of elections clears away, we witness the same system producing gross neglect for risks, disregard for its customers under the implicit assumption that, if things get shaky again, taxpayers’ cash will come raining on the fires threatening the too-big-to-reform banking giants.


Note: edited version is available here: http://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2016/10/too-big-to-fail-or-even-be-reformed/.

9/2/16: Echoes of 2011 at Deutsche?

Almost 4 and a half years ago, I wrote about the systemic weaknesses in the Deutsche Bank balancesheet: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/13092011-german-and-french-banks.html, And now we are seeing these weaknesses coming to the front.

It is not quite Europe's Lehman Moment, yet, but if Deutsche goes to the wall at the rates implied by its CDS, we are into more than Lehman-deep pool of the proverbial...

Source: @Schuldensuehner 

26/12/2014: "Iceland: How Could this Happen?"

Always interesting and never ending debate about Iceland v Ireland can only be aided by the following recent paper by Gylfason, Thorvaldur, titled "Iceland: How Could this Happen? (see CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4605: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2398265).

The author "reviews economic developments in Iceland following its financial collapse in 2008, focusing on causes and consequences of the crash. The review is presented in the context of the Nordic region, with broad comparisons also with developments elsewhere on the periphery of Europe, in Greece, Ireland, and Portugal. In some ways, however, Iceland resembles Italy, Japan, and Russia more than it resembles its Nordic neighbors or even Ireland. The paper also considers the uncertain prospects for reforms and restoration as well as the possible effects of the crash on social, human, and real capital and on long-run economic growth."

To add, two charts of my own, really self-explanatory:

8/10/2014: IMF GFSR: Oh dear, financial markets are headless chickens...

Financial markets are headless chickens rampaging across the risks landscape, says IMF. This being hardly surprising, the IMF goes on to astonish us all by admitting that the beheadings were the job of the Central Bankers and international policy advisers... aka, the IMF...


IMF's Global Financial Stability Report published today offers some very uneasy reading on the topic of the global financial system risks, both in terms of the evolution of these risks over time and the sources of the risks.

Per IMF: "Easy money continues to increase global financial stability risks. Accommodative policies aimed at supporting the recovery and promoting economic risk taking have facilitated greater financial risk taking."

In other words, instead of reducing the overall level of risks accumulated in the financial system, monetary and regulatory policies deployed since the onset of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) have resulted in an increase in these risks. Why? Because the entire response since the start of the GFC was focused on priming the debt pump. This manifested itself in record low rates charged by Central Banks on funding they supply into the banking system; in massive waves of liquidity injected by the Central Banks into the sovereign and private debt markets; in incessant pressure to accumulate credit placed on the economies from the policymakers irrespective of the debt levels already present; in wilful reduction of the debt repayment capacity of the households via increased taxation by the insolvent states and so on. All of this has meant that while economic fundamentals (the Great Recession and debt overhang) should have led to a reduction in credit supplied into the global financial system, the opposite took place.

Asset bases of the banks grew, on the aggregate, Central Banks balance sheets swell and asset markets boomed. As IMF notes: "This has resulted in asset price appreciation, spread compression, and record low volatility, in many areas reaching levels that indicate divergence from fundamentals." In other words: as companies managed no significant gains in their productive capacity, their capital valuation exploded. Solely because the hurdle rate on investment (the cost of investment) collapsed. Never mind there is no new demand for companies' output. When money is cheap, it pays to borrow. So asset prices appreciated. Meanwhile, the risk spreads between various quality borrowers have become much tighter. During the crisis, we saw massive widening of risk premia that lower quality (higher risk) borrowers (sovereign, corporate and household) had to pay to secure credit. Now, with money being given away at negative real prices, no one gives a damn is one borrower is less likely to repay than the other: risks are misplaced once again. You don't have to look any further for the evidence of this than the Euro area sovereign yields. When Italy borrows in the markets at negative rates, you know the jig is up. Surprisingly, all of this: irrationally easy credit and outright bubbly assets valuations, coincided with a decline in markets volatility. In other words, markets are now acting as if their participants are 100% (or close) certain the trend is only up for asset prices. And worse, this applies to all asset classes: from housing to bonds to VCs to Private Equity.

IMF notes that "What is unusual about these developments is their synchronicity: they have occurred simultaneously across broad asset classes and across countries in a way that is unprecedented." The word *unprecedented* should ring the alarm bells. We are deep into the monetary policy corner (zero rates, massive liquidity pumping programmes) and fiscal policy corner (debt levels carried by the sovereigns are now breaking all-time records). Should the *unprecedented* start unwinding, what stands between here and a full blow disaster?

Nothing. Worse than nothing.

Most certainly not the fabled 'reformed' banking systems with all the layers of new supervisors and rules mounted on top of their crumbling strategies is no solution, despite all the European chatter about Banking Union and joint supervision and macro prudential risks oversights and so on… All of this is pure blabber. For as the IMF states: "Capital markets have become more significant providers of credit since the crisis, shifting the locus of risks to the shadow banking system. The share of credit instruments held in mutual fund portfolios has been growing, doubling since 2007, and now amounts to 27 percent of global high-yield debt." So risks have: (1) risen, and (2) migrated into the less manageable, more poorly monitored and understood sub-system.

"At the same time, the fund management industry has become more concentrated. The top 10 global asset management firms now account for more than $19 trillion in assets under management." So risks have: (3) concentrated behind fewer black boxes of management strategies.

With (1)-(3) above you have: "The combination of asset concentration, extended portfolio positions and valuations, flight-prone investors, and vulnerable liquidity structures have increased the sensitivity of key credit markets, increasing market and liquidity risks."

That's IMF-speak for 'sh*t about to hit the fan'. In more academic terms, Nassim Taleb - in 2011 article in Foreign Affairs said: "Complex systems that have artificially suppressed volatility tend to become extremely fragile, while at the same time exhibiting no visible risks. Such environments eventually experience massive blowups, catching everyone off-guard and undoing years of stability or, in some cases, ending up far worse than they were in their initial volatile state. Indeed, the longer it takes for the blowup to occur, the worse the resulting harm in both economic and political systems."


In 2008-2011 GFC, global economy had a buffer: the Emerging Markets. These fared better than advanced economies precisely because regionalisation has enabled them to offset the risk transmission channels that globalisation has created. But what about now? This time around, the buffer is no longer there. Quoting IMF: "Emerging markets are more vulnerable to shocks from advanced economies, as they now absorb a much larger share of the outward portfolio investment from
advanced economies. A consequence of these stronger links is the increased synchronization of asset price movements and volatilities." Translation: if sh*t does hit the fan, there won't be an umbrella big enough to cover everyone… nay, anyone…


But IMF does another useful thing in its GFSR report. It evaluates the impact of the credit risks present. "To illustrate these potential risks to credit markets, this report examines the impact of a rapid market adjustment that causes term premiums in bond markets to revert to historic norms (increasing by 100
basis points) and credit risk premiums to normalize (a repricing of credit risks by 100 basis points)." Now, note - they are not suggesting any risk-run on the markets, nor change in sentiment of any variety. They are just measuring what will happen if *historical norms* were to prevail (for comparison, however, that norm in the euro area implies credit risks and term premia repricing by more like 200 basis points).

"Such a shock could reduce the market value of global bond portfolios by more than 8 percent, or in excess of $3.8 trillion. If losses on this scale were to materialize over a short time horizon, the ensuing portfolio adjustments and market turmoil could trigger significant disruption in global markets." You don't say… sure they will. Remember that the ECB is hoping to deliver roughly USD1 trillion addition to its balance sheet through extraordinary measures, such as TLTROs and ABS purchases. And the shock is almost 4 times that of the ECB extraordinary efforts. What happens, then, with the euro area banks that are so stuffed with Government bonds and corporate debt they are making even thick-necked ECB squirm? Oh, right, they will need to either absorb these losses (which can be of the size of the GFC-induced write downs) or pretend that their bonds holdings are not subject to risks, just as the entire world will see them as being subject to huge risks. Take your pick - either we have an insolvent banking system or we have a dishonest banking system… or may be both… or may be we already have instead of *will have*…


The IMF is always keen on suggesting what needs to be done. But, alas, the Fund has now been devoid of any new ideas on all policy fronts for some time. Ditto on the topic of global financial stability. IMF says: "Managing risks from an ongoing overhaul in bank business models to better support economic risk taking. The policy challenge is to remove impediments to economic risk taking and strengthen the transmission of credit to the real economy." Wait, what? Superficial risk taking stimulation that the IMF said above is the cause of the imbalances is now also the solution to the built up imbalances? Yep, you've heard it right: hair of the dog to the power of 10. "Cure the hangover from 10 pints by downing 10 bottles of vodka…", says Doc. IMF.

But more on the banks in the next post…

31/8/2012: Financial Innovation : Positives v Negatives

Following on my previous post, here's a new paper by Frankin Allen titled "Trends in Financial Innovation and Their Welfare Impact: An Overview" (link here) published in the European Financial management (vol 18, issue 4).

Core paper findings are:

• "There is a fair amount of evidence that financial innovations are sometimes undertaken to create complexity and exploit the purchaser... As far as the financial crisis that started in 2007 is concerned, securitization and subprime mortgages may have exacerbated the problem.  
• "However, financial crises have occurred in a very wide range of circumstances, where these and other innovations were not important.  
• "There is evidence that in the long run financial liberalization has been more of a problem than financial innovation.  
• "There are also many financial innovations that have had a significant positive effect.  
• "These include venture capital and leveraged buyout funds to finance businesses.  In addition, financial innovation has allowed many improvements in the environment and in global health." 

The paper concludes that "On balance it seems likely its effects have been positive rather than negative."

I find the arguments strained. Much of the financial innovation that Allen declares to be positive is innovation that is driven directly by either force of the states or co-financed by the states. Thus these forms of innovation are not really innovative at all, but superficial. For example - debt-for-nature swaps are hardly a form of financial innovation but rather a form of state subsidy. Likewise, much of carbon permits trading is driven by restrictions imposed by the states via coercive systems. These might be positive - the point is not to dispute their social or environmental or economic value - but they are not what I would term 'financial innovations'.

About the only positive financial innovation that Allen cites that does not involve such state interventions is leveraged buyout. Allen does cite evidence that this had a positive effect, but in the periods immediately preceding some financial crises (the latest one being case in point, as was Japan's crisis of the 1990s and Nordic countries crises of the early 1990s etc) leveraged buyouts carry excessive leverage. Thus, the only unequivocally positive effect such buyouts might have at the times of rising debt overhang, in my view, is the effect of triggering future insolvencies that clear the path (via creative destruction) to new or more efficient incumbent firms growth. This positive effect, however, has little or nothing to do with the financial innovation per se.

Lastly, let me point that I am not disputing that some (the issue is really more of how much and of what variety) financial innovation is positive, but that Allen's article fails really to prove his hypothesis. Neither does it do any justice to the article to state that "the long run financial liberalization has been more of a problem than financial innovation" without actually proving this.

11/3/2012: Did Global Financial Integration Contribute to Global Financial Crisis Intensity?

An interesting paper (link here) from Andrew Rose titled International Financial Integration and Crisis Intensity (ADBI Working Paper 341 ).

The study looked at the causes of the 2008–2009 financial crisis "together with its manifestations", using a Multiple Indicator Multiple Cause (MIMIC) model that allows for simultaneous causality effects across a number of variables.

The analysis is conducted on a cross-section of 85 economies. The study focuses "on international financial linkages that may have both allowed the crisis to spread across economies, and/or provided insurance. The model of the cross-economy incidence of the crisis combines 2008–2009 changes in real gross domestic product (GDP), the stock market, economy credit ratings, and the exchange rate. The key domestic determinants of crisis incidence that [considered] are taken from the literature, and are measured in 2006: real GDP per capita; the degree of credit market regulation; and the current account, measured as a fraction of GDP. Above and beyond these three national sources of crisis vulnerability, [Rose added] a number of measures of both multilateral and bilateral financial linkages to investigate the effects of international financial integration on crisis incidence."

The study covers three questions:

• First, did the degree of an economy’s multilateral financial integration help explain its crisis? 
• Second, what about the strength of its bilateral financial ties with the United States and the key Asian economics of the People’s Republic of China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea? 
• Third, did the presence of a bilateral swap line with the Federal Reserve affect the intensity of an economy’s crisis? 

"I find that neither multilateral financial integration nor the existence of a Fed swap line is correlated with the cross-economy incidence of the crisis. [Pretty damming for those who argue that the crisis was caused / exacerbated by 'global' nature of the financial markets and for those who claim that 'local' finance is more stable. Also shows that the Fed did not appeared to have subsidized european and other banks, but instead acted to protect domestic (US) markets functioning.] There is mild evidence that economies with stronger bilateral financial ties to the United States (but not the large Asian economies) experienced milder crises. [This is pretty interesting since so many European leaders have gone on the record blaming the US for causing crises in European banking, while the evidence suggests that there is the evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, the above shows that we must treat with caution the argument that all geographic diversification is good and that, specifically, increasing trade & investment links with large Asian economies - most notably China - is a panacea for financial sector crisis cycles.]"

Core conclusion: "more financially integrated economies do not seem to have suffered more during the most serious macroeconomic crisis in decades. This strengthens the case for international financial integration; if the costs of international financial integration were not great during the Great Recession, when could we ever expect them to be larger?"

Here's a snapshot of top 50 countries by the crisis impact:

Quite thought provoking. One caveat - data covers periods outside Sovereign Debt crisis period of 2010-present and the study can benefit from expanded data coverage, imo.

21/09/2011: ESRB warns of contagion across euro area financial systems

The General Board of the European Systemic Risk Board (ESRB) held its third regular meeting today on September 21st, and here are the highlights.

In terms of assessing the current situation, the ESRB stated that "since the previous ESRB General Board meeting on 22 June 2011, risks to the stability of the EU financial system have increased considerably. Key risks stem from potential further adverse feedback effects between sovereign risks, funding vulnerabilities within the EU banking sector, and a weakening of growth outlooks both at global and EU levels."

So what ESRB is saying here is that the crisis has completed full circle: if in 2008-2009 transmission of risks worked from insolvent banking sector to insolvent sovereigns and (technically always solvent) monetary authorities via liquidity supports & recapitalization schemes, since 2010 through today the risks have flown the other way - from insolvent sovereigns to insolvent banks via bust bond valuations. The only question that remains now, is where the vicious spiral swing next. In my view - at least in anti-taxpayer, anti-competition Europe it will force taxpayers to directly recapitalize the banks (see IMF's latest calls and the rumor that France is about to go this way) to protect incumbent banking license holders from bankruptcy, receiverships and competition from healthier and new banks.

"Over the last months, sovereign stress has moved from smaller economies to some of the larger EU countries. Signs of stress are evident in many European government bond markets, while the high volatility in equity markets indicates that tensions have spread across capital markets around the world. The situation has been aggravated by the progressive drying-up of bank term funding markets, and availability of US dollar funding to EU banks had also decreased significantly. In that context, central banks have decided on coordinated US dollar liquidity-providing operations with longer maturities."

Nothing new in the above, but it is nice to see an honest admission of the ongoing liquidity crisis. Now, recall that I have said on numerous occasions that bank runs start with a run on the bank by its funders. This is what we term a liquidity crunch - interbank markets freeze, banks bonds funding streams dry out. Only after that can the depositor run develop, usually starting with corporate depositors. Funny enough - the ESRB wouldn't say it out-loud, but in effect it already called in the above statement a bank run in funding markets. Worse, we also know - from the likes of Siemens transaction reported here (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/09/20092011-eu-banks-losing-corporate.html ) - that to some extent (unknown) corporate deposits run might be taking place as well. Next?

"The high interconnectedness in the EU financial system has led to a rapidly rising risk of significant contagion. This threatens financial stability in the EU as a whole and adversely impacts the real economy in Europe and beyond."
Boom!

So, per ESRB:
"Decisive and swift action is required from all authorities. In the immediate future this includes:
* implementing, fully and rapidly, the measures agreed upon at the 21 July meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area;
* adopting sustainable fiscal policies and growth-enhancing structural measures so as to achieve or maintain credibility of sovereign signatures in global markets; and
* enhancing the coordination and consistency of communication.
Now, I am not a fan of July 21 decisions, primarily because they do not address the core issue of the crisis - too much debt in the system and too little growth. EFSF purchasing sovereign bonds and lending to insolvent states is not going to reduce the debt pile accumulated by European Governments. Nor will extending maturity and lowering interest rates on its loans help improve economic situation in PIIGS and beyond. So I would disagree with ESRB on the first bullet point.

Calling for adoption of sustainable fiscal policies and growth enhancing measures is like telling a person sinking in a bog to pull harder on his hair. Fiscal sustainability is not being delivered in any of the PIIGS so far, and there is absolutely no appetite for any Government in Europe to take properly drastic measures required to get their finances on sustainable path. Even the very definition of sustainability used by EU is a mad one (let alone not a single state actually adhered to it so far with exception of Finland). A deficit of 3% pa means that you get to 100% debt/GDP ratio in longer time than with a deficit of 5% pa. But you will still get there, folks. Debt to GDP ratio of 60% is only sustainable if, in the environment of 3% 10-year yields your economy expands by more than 1.8% pa (assuming no population growth and no amortization and depreciation under balanced budget). That has not happened in the euro zone in any single 10 year period since we have full data for its members.

Growth-enhancing measures adoption is another case of pure 'wishful' thinking. In most of the Euro area and indeed in the EU Commission, this usually means more subsidies and more state spending. In parts of Central and Eastern Europe it usually means promoting real private sector competition and investment. Of course, we know who weathered the storm best in the last two recessions. But, hey, ESRB wouldn't make a call as to what it means by this "adopting... growth-enhancing measures" despite the fact that much of "growth enhancements" unleashed on euro area economies in recent past is precisely what got us into the current sovereign debt mess in the first place.

As per its last bullet point, one starts to wonder if ESRB is going down the slippery line of 'rhetoric ahead of action'. What does "enhancing the coordination and consistency of communication" mean? All of the EU policymakers 'speaking with one voice'? Curtailing or otherwise minimizing dissent? Controlling information flows? What the hell, pardon my French here, does it really mean, folks?

On a beefy ending, ESRB prescribes that: "Supervisors should coordinate efforts to strengthen bank capital, including having recourse to backstop facilities, taking also into account the need for transparent and consistent valuation of sovereign exposures. If necessary, this could benefit from the possibility for the European Financial Stability Facility to lend to governments in order to recapitalise banks, including in non-programme countries."

I am sorry to say this, but if anyone reading this is going to vote in the Dail on the European Financial Stability Facility and Euro Area Loan Facility (Amendment) Bill 2011 you really have to understand this statement. In effect, ESRB here welcomes loading of the risks of insolvent banking systems - including in non-programme countries - into one single facility, the EFSF, which will have preventative powers to intervene in the markets to buy distressed debts of banks and sovereigns. In a sense, EFSF will become a super-dump - a motherload of super toxic financial refuse from both radioactively insolvent sovereigns and biochemically toxic banks. You wouldn't want THIS anywhere near your local constituency.

14/09/2011: Clueless from the world of finance

I had to get this riddle solved, folks: In the pic below, spot 1,000,023 clueless doorknobs


Answer:

Clueless Number 1: Erin Callan
Clueless numbers 2-15: 14 Goldman Sachs analysts who labored hard to produce that recommendation
Clueless number 16-23: 8-strong crew on CNBC who decided to carry this drivel unchallenged
Clueless numbers 24-1,000,023 (or so): all those who rushed out to buy Lehman's shares on GS recommendation

(I obviously made the numbers up, but, hey... in the world full of clueless analysts this gets one paid loads of money, apparently. Just ask GS)