18/2/16: Is the U.S. About to Slip into a Recession?

This is an unedited version of my article for Manning Financial. Final version is available here: https://issuu.com/publicationire/docs/mf_magazine_spring_2016_17022016_ne?e=16572344/33514016

In almost every sharp downshift in economic activity, and more frequently than that, in almost every economic recession, there are several regular predictors or leading indicators of tougher times ahead. These include sharp drops in corporate profits, and acceleration in yields on lower rated corporate bonds, usually followed by significant declines in industrial production indices and subsequent downward corrections in stock markets and services activities indices.

While these sequences of events repeat with regularity, in many cases, forward signals of recessions can involve a slight variation in timing and permutations of these shocks.

Another regularity that happens when it comes to business cycles is that, traditionally, the U.S. leads Europe into the downturn.

Trouble is, judging by all factors mentioned above, the U.S. is currently heading into a recession. Fast. And with some vengeance.

The Bad News

Let’s start with corporate profits. The latest data from the U.S. Federal Reserve shows that year-on-year 3Q 2015 growth in corporate profits for non-financial corporations was sharply negative - at -4.26 percent. Furthermore, corporate profits growth slowed down from 7.72 percent in 1Q 2015 to 1.83 percent in 2Q 2015. The rate of decline in corporate profits growth in the U.S. is now sharper than during the last GDP wobble in 1Q 2014 and sharper than in 3Q 2008. The latest growth figure also marks the fastest rate of decline in profits since 3Q 2009.

CHART 1: Non-Financial Corporate Profits and Nominal GDP

Growth Rates, Percent per annum

Source: Author own calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank

Chart above shows clear pattern of correlation between corporate profits growth rates and subsequent growth rate in nominal GDP. It also shows that U.S. corporate profits growth rates have been on a declining trend since 3Q 2010.

Meanwhile, corporate debt yields are shooting straight up. Added to this dynamic is another troublesome sign: yields volatility is also on the rise. In other words, the markets are not only nervous about individual issuers, but are appearing to be scared of the entire asset class. I wrote about this phenomena in previous newsletter, here. Behaviourally, international and U.S. investors have been running for the hills for some time now, despite the extremely risk-supportive monetary policies not just by the Fed, but also by major carry trade-sustaining central banks (Bank of Japan and ECB). In normal conditions, carry trade drivers should moderate risk aversion effects. Except they are not doing so today.

As noted in a recent research note by J.P. Morgan Cazenove in general, credit spreads lead equities and the former “are not giving a positive signal” to the latter (see: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/01/24116-high-yield-bonds-flash-red-for.html).

So that puts two recession-beaconing stars into a perfect alignment.

What about the U.S. Industrial Production? From over 2015, U.S. industrial output posted declines, based on monthly growth rates, in ten months out of twelve, with December 2015 production levels down almost 2 percent on December 2014 peak. In annual growth terms, output growth rate started at a brisk 4.48 percent pace in January 2015 and ended the year with a contraction of 1.75 percent - the sharpest rate of decline since December 2009. That’s a swing of some 6.23 percentage points in 12 months.

CHART 2: U.S. Industrial Production Index

Monthly growth rates, percent

Source: Author own calculations based on data from the Federal Reserve Bank

Like with corporate bonds and profits, some of this is down to a combination of commodities recession and Emerging Markets woes.

The former is pretty apparent to all concerned. Between the start of 2014 and the end of 2015, the weighted average price of oil across three key grades (Brent, WTI and Fateh) fell 51.1 percent. Non-fuel commodities went down 21 percent.

The latter also was subject to my earlier contributions to this newsletter. To update you with the latest news, while Emerging Markets continued to contribute some 70 percent of overall global growth in 2015, the rate of growth in key BRICS economies (including Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) has been tanking.Per latest IMF forecasts, released earlier this month, Emerging Markets are still expected to grow by 4.3 and 4.7 percent in 2016 and 2017. However, this puts their growth rates below the 2011-2014 average of 5.3 percent and the 2000-2007 average of 6.5 percent. Amongst the BRICS, all but China and India are either already in a recession or one quarter away from a recession. China is expected to post official growth of 6.9 percent in 2015, with forecast for 2016-2017 for 6.3 percent and 6.0 percent, respectively. Even if trust Chinese official statistics, this represents a big drop. For example, 2015 has been the slowest year in terms of GDP growth in 25 years, and the fourth slowest in 36 years.

But beyond these two factors, U.S. output growth is also being pushed down by stronger Dollar and collapsing global trade. Global trade has been tracking the declining fortunes of global demand since 2012. Over the last four years, global trade volumes growth underperformed post-crisis average and historical average, pushing growth rates to their lowest readings for any decade on record. In line with this, Baltic Dry Index – the cost indicator for hiring cargo vessels to ship goods around the world – has been hitting historical lows almost on a daily basis since the second part of December 2015.

All of the above factors, from falling profits, to falling production growth rates, to underlying commodities recession, global demand weaknesses and international currencies re-valuations, have undoubtedly contributed to falling equity prices. Since the start of 2016, some forty major equity markets around the world have entered bear territory. While on the corporate side of the U.S. economy, oil and commodities prices recession has been a dominant driver for aggregate equities indices movements, underlying equity price swings are much broader currents. For example, equities sell-offs around the world did not concentrate on commodities producing sectors and companies, or on highly leveraged corporates alone. Instead, the bear markets have been broad.

The Good News

Which brings us to last piece of a puzzle, yet to fall into its place: consumer demand. Or put into the above context – the good news bit.

Falling equity and bond prices, as well as rising retail interest rates are capable of triggering - if sustained over time - drops in consumer confidence, followed by households’ pulling back from consumption and investment. So far, stronger dollar (improving U.S. consumers’ purchasing power), lower energy prices (improving their disposable incomes) and falling unemployment (improving household pre-tax incomes) have sustained consumer confidence at healthy levels.

CHART 3: Index of the U.S. Consumer Sentiment

Source: University of Michigan

However, current levels of consumer confidence are barely touching pre-crisis averages and have declined since local peak in January 2015 through 3Q 2015. There is no crisis at the moment, but given the strength of household finances, 2015 index performance was hardly spectacular.

Whatever resilience we do see in consumer surveys, it is most likely underpinned by the positive jobs prints. Based on historical figures, over each recessionary episode in the U.S. history since the end of the World War II, employment was one of the key casualties, declining with every recession by at least 1 percentage point. U.S. added 2.597 million new private sector jobs over the course of 2015 and average weekly earnings are rising in both goods-producing and services-providing sectors.

The Latest Official Forecasts

This is precisely why despite the leading indicators flashing bright warning signs of the potential incoming recession, the IMF continues to forecast rather robust – by comparatives to the Euro area, UK and Japan – for the U.S. in 2016 and 2017. Per January update to its forecasts, the IMF now expects U.S. economy to grow at 2.6 percent in both 2016 and 2017. This comes against the Fund forecast for 2.2 percent growth in 2016 and 2017 in the UK, 1.7 percent real growth in the Euro area over the same period, and 1 percent and 0.3 percent growth in Japan in 2016 and 2017, respectively. However, IMF’s latest forecast represents a sizable downgrade for the U.S. compared to previous forecasts. Thus, compared to October 2015 outlook, IMF expectations for U.S. economic expansion are now 0.2 percentages lower for both 2016 and 2017.

Still, IMF references the U.S. as one of the four core risks to its global outlook for 2016. Specifically, the IMF cites the risk arising from “tighter global financing conditions as the United States exits from extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy”.

This risk, along side growing uncertainty about overall health of the U.S. economy, are material factors for Irish and European markets and investors. Ireland benefited significantly from the U.S. recovery and subsequent devaluation of the Euro vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar. These factors underpinned our exports of goods to the U.S. and Canada rising by EUR6.85 billion for the first eleven months of 2015 compared to the same period in 2012. This growth is more than double the rate of expansion in our trade in goods with the EU (including the UK). From Irish investors perspective, our domestic assets performance – across both equities and bonds – owes a lot to the resilience of the U.S. economy. Likewise, our investors’ access to diversified portfolios of internationally-listed and traded assets cannot be imagined absent the U.S. equity and debt markets.

All of this is currently at risk when it comes to the U.S. economic and markets performance forward. And more ominously, our own European economic and investment fortunes are tied closely to the North American economies. Whenever you hear any political leader – be it Enda Kenny or Jean-Claude Juncker – extoling the virtues of Ireland’s or Europe’s firewalls against international shocks, remember the old adage: when America sneezes, Europe catches the cold.

  

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!”

17/2/16: Markets Do Come Back... But Not ISEQ

Back in 2008, when the Irish markets were tanking, one of the managing partners in a large Irish stock brokerage issued an infamous research note, telling clients that while things were bad, things will be good again.  The main point of the note was that "markets do come back" no matter what.

As evidence of such "comebacks", the author of the note offered an anecdote of his relative trying to sell property prior to the onset of the Asian Financial Crisis at the end of the 1999. The sale, having fallen through due to the crisis hitting hard, was completed at 2/3rds of the original offered price some 8 years ago. This was the analyst's evidence for the 'inevitability of recovery'.

Back at the time the note was issued, I pointed out to the said analyst that he missed a major problem: inflation. By the time his relative did conclude the sale, the price he/she got for the property was down 80% or more, not 33%, because 8 years of inflation chewed through his/her returns.

Ever since then, I have been tracking (occasionally - usually once a year) Irish stock exchange broadest index, ISEQ, for the signs that "markets do come back". Here is the latest update: we are still waiting for when they "come back".

In nominal terms, things are dire:

Even though ISEQ no longer contains the hardest hit, by the crisis, equities - a little cheat trick used by Irish Stuffbrokers to sell ISEQ 'returns' is never correcting them for survivourship bias, but let us indulge them on this - ISEQ is still massively below pre-crisis peak. It has not 'come back', but instead, on its peak-to-trough way, in nominal terms, it was falling 972.6 points per month on average and on its 'coming back' way from the trough it has been averaging gains of just 46.2 points per month. Which means the market drop rate was 20 times faster than the market's 'coming back' rate.

However, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, ISEQ is in a horrific shape. even though inflation has been extremely low, it has been present nonetheless. And chart below shows ISEQ in inflation-adjusted terms:

The freak show of Irish stocks is self-evidently not in a rude health. The 'coming back' of the Irish markets is so bad, that if you invested in them during October 1997-December 1999 period, today you would have lost, on average 10% of your investment, and if you invested in ISEQ back in 1Q 1998, you would be down 15.8% once inflation is factored in.

Worse, compared to pre-crisis peak, we are nowhere near that 'come back' territory, some 8 years and 9 months after reaching the peak, the index is still 41.4% down in real terms. Current level (using last 3 months average) of the index is below all period averages for the index, save for the period of post-dot.com crash, but using latest ISEQ reading (instead of a 3mo average), the market now is below even that abysmal period average.

Thus, overall, at current position, ISEQ offers us not the lesson of a market that "comes back", but a market that goes nowhere over the last 18 years. And that, folks, is the combined power of inflation and nonsense that is Irish Stuffbrokerage research... err... marketing.

17/2/16: EU Commission Analysis of the Irish Economy Own Goal

In a recent assessment of the economic outlook for Ireland for 2016, the DG for Economic and Financial Affairs of EU has heaped praise on the country (see full list of country-specific assessments here: http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/eu/forecasts/2016_winter_forecast_en.htm?utm_source=e-news&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=e-news132). Much of it - justified.

However, a glaring miss in the analysis was a truthful representation of the balance of sources for growth in the economy.

Per EU Commission: “The Irish economy grew again strongly in the third quarter of 2015 although more moderately than earlier in the year. …However, survey indicators point to … GDP growth for 2015 as a whole to 6.9%. In 2016 and 2017, the moderation in GDP growth is expected to continue towards more sustainable rates of about 4% and 3% respectively.”

All of which is fine.

Then the assessment goes on: “While the recovery started in the external sector, domestic demand is now driving GDP growth. It expanded by more than 8% (y-o-y) in the first nine months of 2015, with household consumption growing by 3.5% and investment by over 25%.” I covered the latest figures for Irish national accounts in a series of posts here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2015/12/131215-irish-national-accounts-3q-post.html, and in particular, domestic demand growth drivers here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2015/12/111215-irish-national-accounts-3q-post.html. And as I noted in my analysis, the problem is that Domestic Demand printed by CSO no longer actually reflects purely indigenous economy activity.

EU assessment hints at this: “…as developments in some companies and sectors are boosting investment and imports in the economy. Multinationals have been transferring a number of patents to Ireland. In the first nine months of 2015, these transfers generated a growth in investment in intellectual property of over 100% (y-o-y) and an equivalent increase in services imports. In 2016 and 2017, the fees for the use of these patents are expected to benefit the current account balance and lead to more company profits being booked in Ireland. Conversely, the purchase of airplanes by international leasing companies based in Ireland collapsed in the third quarter of 2015, leading to a large fall in equipment investment. Excluding intangibles and aircraft, core investment was strong, growing by over 11% (y-o-y) in the first three quarters of 2015, despite the delayed recovery in construction activity. The growth in core investment is forecast to continue more moderately in 2016 and 2017.”

All of which goes to heart of the argument that so-called domestic demand-reported ‘investment’ is heavily polluted by MNCs and aircraft purchases. In other words, stripping out effects of MNCs on domestic demand, actual growth has once again been heavily (around 1/2) concentrated in the external (MNCs-led) sectors. And worse, going forward, transfers of patents signal that Irish economy is likely to become even more unbalanced in the future, with tax arbitrage inflows from the rest of the world to Ireland making us ever more dependent on remaining a corporate tax haven in the face of globally changing taxation environment.

Politically correct public communications from the EU Commission won’t put it this way, but we know that behind the scenes, our shenanigans, like the introduction of the ‘Knowledge Development Box’ tax loophole are unlikely to go unnoticed… especially when it leads to a 100% growth in patents offshoring.

17/2/16: Another Germanic policy straightjacket

My comment on the Germany's "Sages" proposal for sovereign bonds bail-ins rule for Portugal's Expresso: http://expresso.sapo.pt/economia/2016-02-16-Risco-de-um-ataque-especulativo-as-dividas-dos-perifericos.

In English unedited:

The proposed 'sovereign bail-in' mechanism represents another dysfunctional response to the sovereign debt crisis in the Euro area. The mechanism de facto exposes sovereigns locked in a currency union to the full extent of monetary and fiscal risks that reside outside their control, while reinforcing the risks arising from their inability to control their own monetary policies.

Under the current system, a run on the sovereign debt in the markets for any individual state can be backstopped via ESM as a lender of last resort. In a normally functioning currency union, such a run can be backstopped also via monetary policy and fiscal mechanisms.

In contrast, within the proposed bail-in system, both the ESM and the monetary policy become unavailable when it comes to securing a backstop against a market shock. The full extent of a run on Government bond for a member state will befall the fiscal authorities of the member state - aka the taxpayers who will end up paying for bonds bail-ins through higher yields of Government debt and fiscal squeeze on expenditure and taxation.

In theory, a bail-in mechanism for sovereign debt can be implemented in the presence of three key conditions:

• firstly, the implementing country must have control over its own monetary policy; 
• secondly, the implementing country must have benign debt levels and low reliance on concentrated holdings of its debt, especially in the systemically important institutions (for example by a handful of larger banks); and 
• thirdly, the implementing country must have strong fiscal balancesheet to absorb shocks of risk-repricing during the period of bail-in rule introduction. 

None of these conditions are satisfied by the Euro 'periphery' states today, nor are likely to be satisfied by them in the foreseeable future. At least two of the three necessary conditions are not satisfied by the vast majority of the Euro area states at the moment and are also unlikely to be satisfied by them in the foreseeable future.

In a sense, we are witnessing another attempt to put Euro area into a Germanic policy straightjacket in a hope that this time around, the outcome will be different and that bail-ins rules will fix the unresolvable dilemmas inherent in the Euro design. It is a vain hope and a futile exercise that is creating more risks in exchange for no tangible gain.

14/2/16: Ifo WorldEconomic Climate Index: 1Q 2016

Global growth leading indicators are screaming it, Baltic Dry Index is screaming it, PMIs are screaming it, BRICS are living it, and now Ifo surveys are showing it: global economy is heading into a storm.

The latest warning is from the Ifo World Economic Climate Index.

Per Ifo release: “The Ifo Index for the world economy dropped from 89.6 points to 87.8 points this quarter, drifting further from its long-term average (96.1 points). While assessments of the current economic situation brightened marginally, expectations were less positive than last quarter. The sharp decline in oil prices seems to be having no overall positive economic impact. Growth in the world economy continues to lack impetus.”

In numbers, thus:

• Headline World Economic Climate Index is now averaging 88.7 over the two quarters through 1Q 2016, which is statistically below 97.7 average for the 2 quarters through 3Q 2015 and 93.2 average for 4 quarters through 1Q 2016. Current 2 quarters average is way lower than 8 quarters average of 98.4. Historical average is 94.9, but when one considers only periods of robust economic growth, the index average is 98.9. Again, current 2 quarters average is significantly below that.
• Present Situation sub-index 2 quarters average is at 87.0, which is woefully lower than 2 quarters average through 3Q 2015 at 91.6 and is well below 96.0 average for the historical series covering periods of robust economic expansions.
• Expectations for the next 6 months sub-index is at 90.4 on the 2 quarters average basis, down from 103.5 2 quarters average through 3Q 2015 and below historical (expansion periods only) average of 101.5.


Geographically, per Ifo release: “The economic climate deteriorated in all regions, except in Oceania, Asia and Latin America. In Oceania the climate index stabilised at a low level, and in Asia and Latin America it edged upwards. The indicator is now below its long-term average in all regions, with the exception of Europe. The climate in the CIS states and the Middle East clouded over, especially due to poorer economic expectations. In Europe WES experts are slightly less positive about future economic developments than in October 2015. In North America and Africa, by contrast, the slightly less favourable economic situation led to a deterioration in the economic climate.”

You can see my analysis of the European index data here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2016/02/5216-ifo-economic-climate-index-for.html.



12/2/16: Deutsche Bank: Crystallising Europe’s TBTF Problems

This week was quite a tumultuous one for banks, and especially Europe’s champion of the ‘best in class’ TBTF institutions, Deutsche Bank. Here’s what happened in a nutshell.

Deutsche’s 6 percent perpetual bonds, CoCos (more on this below), with expected maturity in 2022, used to yield around 7 percent back in January. Having announced massive losses for fiscal year 2015 (first time full year losses were posted by the DB since 2008), Deutsche was under pressure in the equity markets. Rather gradual sell-off of shares in the bank from the start of 2015 was slowly, but noticeably eroding bank’s equity risk cushion. So markets started to get nervous of the second tier of ‘capital’ held by the bank - second in terms of priority of it being bailed in in the case of an adverse shock. This second tier is known as AT1 and it includes those CoCos.

Yields on CoCos rose and their value (price) fell. This further reduced Deutsche’s capital cushion and, more materially, triggered concerns that Deutsche will not be calling in 2022 bonds on time, thus rolling them over into longer maturity. Again, this increased losses on the bonds. These losses were further compounded by the market concerns that due to a host of legal and profit margins problems, Deutsche can suspend payments on CoCos coupons, if not in 2016, then in 2017 (again, more details on this below). Which meant that in markets view, shorter-term 2022 CoCos were at a risk of being converted into a longer-dated and zero coupon instrument. End of the game was: Coco’s prices fell from 93 cents to the Euro at the beginning of January, to 71-72 cents on the Euro on Monday this week.

When prices fall as much as Deutsche’s CoCos, investors panic and run for exit. Alas, dumping CoCos into the markets became a problem, exposing liquidity risks imbedded into CoCos structure. There are two reasons for the liquidity risk here: one is general market aversion to these instruments (a reversal of preferences yield-chasing strategies had for them before); and lack of market makers in CoCos (thin markets) because banks don’t like dealing in distressed assets of other banks. Worse, Asian markets were largely shut this week, limiting potential pool of buyers.

Spooked by shrinking valuations and falling liquidity of the Deutsche’s AT1 instruments, investors rushed into buying insurance against Deutsche’s default on senior bonds - the Credit Default Swaps or CDS. This propelled Deutsche’s CDS to their highest levels since the Global Financial Crisis. Deutsche’s CDS shot straight up and with their prices rising, implied probability of Deutsche’s default went through the roof, compounding markets panic.


Summing Up the Mess: Three Pillars of European Risks

Deutsche Bank AG is a massive, repeat - massive - banking behemoth. And the beast is in trouble.

Let’s do some numbers first. Take a rather technical test of systemic risk exposures by the banks, run by NYU Stern VLab. First number of interest: Systemic Risk calculation - the value of bank equity at risk in a case of systemic crisis (basically - a metric of how much losses a bank can generate to its equity holders under a systemic risk scenario).

Deutsche clocks USD91.623 billion hole relating to estimated capital shortfall after the existent capital cushion is exhausted. A wallop that is the third largest in the world and accounts for 7.23% of the entire global banking system losses in a systemic crisis.

Now, for volatility that Deutsche can transmit to the markets were things to go pear shaped. How much of a daily drop in equity value of the Deutsche will occur if the aggregate market falls more than 2%. The metric for this is called Marginal Expected Shortfall or MES and Deutsche clocks in respectable 4.59, ranking it 8th in the world by impact. In a sense, MSE is a ‘tail event’ beta - stock beta for times of significant markets distress.

How closely does Deutsche move with the market over time, without focusing just on periods of significant markets turmoil? That would be bank’s beta, which is the covariance of its stock returns with the market return divided by variance of the market return. Deutsche’s beta is 1.61, which is high - it is 7th highest in the world and fourth highest amongst larger banks and financial institutions, and it basically means that for 1% move in the market, on average, Deutsche moves 1.6%.

But worse: Deutsche leverage is extreme. Save for Dexia and Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, the two patently sick entities (one in a shutdown mode another hooked to a respirator), Deutsche is top of charts with leverage of 79.5:1.

Incidentally, this week, Deutsche credit risk surpassed that of another Italian behemoth, UniCredit:

So Deutsche is loaded with the worst form of disease - leverage and it is caused by the worst sort of underlying assets: the impenetrable derivatives (see below on that).


Overall, Deutsche problems can be divided into 3 categories:

1. Legal
2. Capital, and
3. Leverage and quality of assets.

These problems plague all European TBTF banks ever since the onset of the Global Financial Crisis. The legacy of horrific misspelling of products, mis-pricing of risks and markets distortions by which European banks stand is contrasted by the rhetoric emanating from European regulators about ‘reforms’, ‘repairs’ and ‘renewed regulatory vigilance’ in the sector. In truth, as Deutsche’s saga shows, capital buffers fixes, applied by European regulators, have yielded nothing more than an attempt to powder over the miasma of complex, derivatives-laden asset books and equally complex, risk-obscuring structure of new capital buffers. It also highlights just how big of a legal mess European banks are, courtesy of decades of their maltreatment of their clients and markets participants.

So let’s start churning through them one-by-one.


The Saudi Arabia of Legal Problems

Deutsche has been slow to wake up and smell the roses on all various legal settlements other banks signed up to in years past. Deutsche has settled or paid fines of some USD9.3 billion to-date (from the start of the Global Financial Crisis in 2008), covering:

• Charges of violations of the U.S. sanctions;
• Interest rates fixing charges; and
• Mortgages-Backed Securities (alleged) fraud with respect to the U.S. state-sponsored lenders: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And at the end of 2015, Deutsche has provided a set-aside funding for settling more of the same, to the tune of USD6 billion. So far, it faces:

1. U.S. probe into Mortgages-Backed Securities it wrote and sold pre-crisis. If one goes by the Deutsche peers, the USD15.3 billion paid and set aside to-date is not going to be enough. For example, JP Morgan total cost of all settlements in the U.S. alone is in excess of USD23 billion. But Deutsche is a legal basket case compared to JPM-Chase. JPM, Bank of America and Citigroup paid around USD36 billion on their joint end. In January 2016, Goldman Sachs reached an agreement (in principle) with DofJustice to pay USD5.1 billion for same. Just this week (http://www.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-mortgage-backed-securities-settlement-2016-2) Morgan Stanley agreed to pay USD3.2 billion on the RMBS case. Some more details on this here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-deutsche-bank-lawsuit-idUSKCN0VC2NY.
2. Probes into currency manipulations and collusion on its trading desk (DB is the biggest global currency trader that is yet to settle with the U.S. DoJustice. In currency markets rigging settlement earlier, JPMorgan, Citicorp and four other financial institutions paid USD5.8 billion and entered guilty pleas already.
3. Related to currency manipulations probe, DB is defending itself (along with 16 other financial institutions) in a massive law suit by pension funds and other investors. Deutsche says ‘nothing happened’. Nine out of the remaining 15 institutions are pushing to settle the civil suit for (at their end of things) USD2 billion. Keep in mind of all civil suit defendants - Deutsche is by far the largest dealer in currency markets.
4. Probes in the U.S. and UK on its alleged or suspected role in channeling some USD10 billion of Russian money into the West;
5. Worse, UK regulators are having a close watch on Deutsche Bank - in 2014, they placed it on the their "enhanced supervision" list, reserved for banks that have either gone through a systemic failure or are at a risk of such; a list that includes no other large banking institution on it, save for Deutsche.
6. This is hardly an end to the Deutsche woes. Currently, it is among a group of financial institutions under the U.S. investigation into trading in the U.S. Treasury market, carried out by the Justice Department. 
7. The bank is also under inquiries covering alleged fixings of precious metals benchmarks.
8. The bank is even facing some legal problems relating to its operations (in particular hiring practices) in Asia. And it is facing some trading-related legal challenges across a number of smaller markets, as exemplified by a recent case in Korea (http://business.asiaone.com/news/deutsche-bank-trader-sentenced-jail).

You really can’t make a case any stronger: Deutsche is a walking legal nightmare with unknown potential downside when it comes to legal charges, costs and settlements. More importantly, however, it is a legal nightmare not because regulators are becoming too zealous, but because, like other European banks, adjusting for its size, it has its paws in virtually every market-fixing scandal. The history of European banking to-date should teach us one lesson and one lesson only: in Europe, honest, functioning and efficient markets have been seconded to manipulated, dominated by TBTF institutions and outright rigged structures more reminiscent of business environment of the Italian South, than of Nordic ‘regulatory havens’.

CoCo Loco

CoCos, Contingent Convertible Capital Instruments, are a hybrid form of capital instruments that are designed and structured to absorb losses in times of stress by automatically converting into equity should a bank experience a decline in its capital ratios below a certain threshold. Because they are a form of convertible debt, they are counted as Tier 1 capital instrument ‘additional’ Tier 1 instruments or AT1.

CoCos are also perpetual bonds with no set maturity date. Banks can be redeemed them on option, usually after 5 years, but banks can also be prevented by the regulators from doing so. The expectation that banks will redeem these bonds creates expectation of their maturity for investors and this expectation is driven by the fact that CoCos are more expensive to issue for the banks, creating an incentive for them to redeem these instruments. European banks love CoCos, in contrast to the U.S. banks that issue preferred shares as their Tier 1 capital boosters, because Europeans simply love debt. Debt in any form. It gives banks funding without giving it a headache of accounting to larger pools of equity holders, and it gives them priority over other liabilities. AT1 is loved by European regulators, because it sits right below T1 (Tier 1) and provides more safety to senior bondholders on whose shoulders the entire scheme of European Ponzi finance (using Minsky’s terminology) rests.

In recent years, Deutsche, alongside other banks was raising capital. Last year, Credit Suisse, went to the markets to raise some CHF6 billion (USD6.1 billion), Standard Chartered Plc raised about $5.1 billion. Bank of America got USD5 billion from Warren Buffett in August 2014. So in May 2014, Deutsche was raising money, USD 1.5 billion worth, for the second time (it tapped markets in 2013 too). The fad of the day was to issue CoCos - Tier 1 securities, known as Contingent Convertible Bonds. All in, European banks have issued some EUR91 billion worth of this AT1 capital starting from 2013 on.

Things were hot in the markets then. Enticed by a 6% original coupon, investors gobbled up these CoCos to the tune of EUR3.5 billion (the issue cover was actually EUR25 billion, so the CoCos were in a roaring demand). Not surprising: in the world of low interest rates, say thanks to the Central Banks, banks were driving investors to take more and more risk in order to get paid.

There was, as always there is, a pesky little wrinkle. CoCos are convertible to equity (bad news in the case of a bank running into trouble), but they are also carrying a little clause in their prospectus. Under Compulsory Cancelation of Interest heading, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Prospectus imposed deferral of interest payments on CoCos whenever CoCos payment of interest “together with any additional Distributions… that are simultaneously planned or made or that have been made by the issuer on the other Tier 1 instruments… would exceed the Available Distributable Items…” and/or “if and to the extent that the competent supervisory authority orders that all or part of the relevant payment of interest be cancelled…”

That is Prospectus-Speak for saying that CoCos can suspend interest payments per clauses, before the capital adequacy problems arise. The risks of such an event are not covered by Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which cover default risk for senior bonds.

The reason for this clause is that European regulators impose on the banks what is known as CRD (Combined Buffer Requirement and Maximum Distributable Amount) limits: If the bank total buffers fall below the Combined Buffer Requirement, then CoCos and other similar instruments do not pay in full. That is normal and the risk of this should be fully priced in all banks’ CoCos. But for Deutsche, there is also a German legal requirement to impose an additional break on bank’s capital buffers depletion: a link between specified account (Available Distributable Items) balance and CoCos pay-out suspension. This ADI account condition is even more restrictive than what is allowed under CRD.

This week, DB said they have some EUR1 billion available in 2016 to pay on EUR350 million interest coupon due per CoCos (due date in April). But few are listening to DB’s pleas - CoCos were trading at around 75 cents in the euro mark this week. The problem is that the markets are panicked not just by the prospect of the accounting-linked suspension of coupon payments, but also by the rising probability of non-redemption of CoCos in the near future - a problem plaguing all financials.

DB is at the forefront of these latter concerns, because of its legal problems and also because the bank is attempting to reshape its own business (the former problem covered above, the latter relates to the discussion below). DB just announced a massive EUR6.8 billion net loss for 2015 which is not doing any good to alleviate concerns about it’s ability to continue funding coupon payments into 2017. Unknown legal costs exposure of DB mean that DB-estimated expected funding capacity of some EUR4.3 billion in 2017 available to cover AT1 payments is based on its rather conservative expectation for 2016 legal costs and rather rosy expectations for 2016 income, including the one-off income from the 2015-agreed sale of its Chinese bank holdings.

Earlier this week, Standard & Poor’s, cut DB’s capital ratings on “concerns that Germany’s biggest lender could report a loss that would restrict its ability to pay on the obligations”. S&P cut DB’s Tier 1 securities from BB- to B+ from BB- and slashed perpetual Tier 2 instruments from BB to BB-.

Beyond all of this mess, Deutsche is subject to the heightened uncertainty as to the requirements for capital buffers forward - something that European banks co-share. AT 1 stuff, as highlighted above, is one thing. But broader core Tier 1 ratio in 4Q 2015 was 11.1%, which is down on 11.5% in 4Q 2014. In its note cutting CoCos rating, S&P said that “The bank's final Tier 1 interest payment capacity for 2017 will depend on its actual net earnings in 2016 as well as movements in other reserves.” Which is like saying: “Look, things might work out just fine. But we have no visibility of how probable this outcome is.” Not assuring…

DB is also suffering the knock-on effect of the general gloom in the European debt markets. Based on Bloomberg data, high yield corporate bonds issuance in Europe is down some 78 percent in recent months, judging by underwriters fees. These woes relate to European banks outlook for 2016, which links to growth concerns, net interest margin concerns and quality of assets concerns.


Badsky Loansky: A Eurotown’s Bad Bear?

Equity and debt markets repricing of Deutsche paper is in line with a generally gloomy sentiment when it comes to European banks.

The core reason is that aided by the ECB’s QE, the banks have been slow cleaning their acts when it comes to bad loans and poor quality assets. European Banking Authority estimates that European banks hold some USD 1.12 trillion worth of bad loans on their books. These primarily relate to the pre-crisis lending. But, beyond this mountain of bad debt, we have no idea how many loans are marginal, including newly issued loans and rolled over credit. How much of the current credit pool is sustained by low interest rates and is only awaiting some adverse shock to send the whole system into a tailspin? Such a shock might be borrowers’ exposures to the US dollar credit, or it might be companies exposure to global growth environment, or it might be China unwinding, or all three. Not knowing is not helpful. Oil price collapse, for example, is hitting hard crude producers. Guess who were the banks’ favourite customers for jumbo-sized corporate loans in recent years (when oil was above USD50pb)? And guess why would any one be surprised that with global credit markets being in a turmoil, Deutsche’s fixed income (debt) business would be performing badly?

Deutsche and other european banks are caught in a dilemma. Low rates on loans and negative yields on Government bonds are hammering their profit margins (based on net interest margin - the difference between their lending rate and their cost of raising funds). Solution would be to raise rates on loans. But doing so risks sending into insolvency and default their marginal borrowers. Meanwhile, the pool of such marginal borrowers is expanding with every drop in oil prices and every adverse news from economic growth front. So the magic potion of QE is now delivering more toxicity to the system than good, and yet, the system requires the potion to flow on to sustain itself.

Again, this calls in Minsky: his Ponzi finance thesis that postulates that viability of leveraged financial system can only be sustained by rising capital valuations. When capital valuations stop growing faster than the cost of funding, the system collapses.

In part to address the market sentiment, Deutsche is talking about deploying the oldest trick in the book: buying out some of its liabilities - err… senior bonds (not CoCos) - at a discount in the markets to the tune of EUR5 billion across two programmes. If it does, it will hit own liquidity in the short run, but it will also (probably or possibly) book a profit and improve its balance sheet in the longer term. The benefits are in the future, and the only dividend hoped-for today is a signalling value of a bank using cash to buy out debt. Which hinges on the return of the markets to some sort of the ‘normal’ (read: renewed optimism). Update: here's the latest on the subject via Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-12/deutsche-bank-to-buy-back-5-4-billion-bonds-in-euros-dollars

Back to the performance to-date, however.

Deutsche Bank's share price literally fell off the cliff at the start of this week, falling 10 percent on Monday and hitting its lowest level since 1984.

On bank’s performance side, concerns are justified. As I noted earlier, Deutsche posted a massive EUR6.89 billion loss for the year, with EUR2 billion of this booked in 4Q alone. Compared to 2014, Deutsche ended 2015 with its core equity Tier 1 capital (the main buffer against shocks) down from EUR60 billion to EUR52 billion.

Still, panic selling pushed DB equity valuation to EUR19 billion, in effect implying that some 2/3rds of the book of its assets are impaired. Which is nonsense. Things might be not too good, but they aren’t that bad today. The real worry with assets side of the DB is not so much current performance, but forward outlook. And here we have little visibility, precisely because of the utterly abnormal conditions the banks are operating in, courtesy of the global economy and central banks.

So markets are exaggerating the risks, for now. Psychologically, this is just a case of panic.

But panic today might be a precursor to the future. More of a longer term concern is DB’s exposure to the opaque world of derivatives that left markets analysts a bit worried (to put things mildly). Deutsche has taken on some pretty complex derivative plays in recent years in order to offset some of its losses relating to legal troubles. These instruments can be quite sensitive to falling interest rates. Smelling the rat, current leadership attempted to reduce bank’s risk loads from derivatives trade, but at of the end of 2015, the bank still has an estimated EUR1.4 trillion exposure to these instruments. Only about a third of the DB’s balance sheet is held in German mortgages and corporate loans (relatively safer assets), with another third composed of derivatives and ‘other’ exposures (where ‘other’ really signals ‘we don’t quite feel like telling you’ rather than ‘alternative assets classes’). For these, the bank has some EUR215 billion worth of ‘officially’ liquid assets - a cushion that might look solid, but has not been tested in a sell-off.


In summary: 

Deutsche’s immediate problems are manageable and the bank will most likely pull out of the current mess, bruised, but alive. But the two horsemen of a financial apocalypse that became visible in the Deutsche’s performance in recent weeks are worrying:
1) We have a serious problem with leverage remaining in the system, underlying dubious quality of assets and capital held and non-transparent balance sheets when it comes to derivatives exposures; and
2) We have a massive problem of residual, unresolved issues arising from incomplete response to markets abuses that took place before, during and after the crisis.

And there are plenty potential triggers ahead to derail the whole system. Which means that whilst Deutsche is not Europe’s Lehman, it might become Europe’s Bear Sterns, unless some other TBTF preempts its run for the title… And there is no shortage of candidates in waiting…



Links: 
DB’s 2015 report presentation deck: https://www.db.com/ir/en/download/Deutsche_Bank_4Q2015_results.pdf
DB’s internal memo to employees on how “ok” things are: https://www.db.com/newsroom_news/2016/ghp/a-message-from-john-cryan-to-deutsche-bank-employees-0902-en-11392.htm

10/2/16: Slon.ru: "Чем хуже, тем лучше"

My latest column “Чем хуже, тем лучше. Откуда у российской экономики все больше сил“ for Slon.ru is out at https://slon.ru/posts/63670 in Russian.

This time, I am covering the topic of how Russian economy deleveraging leads to a future uplift in its potential growth, before tackling the cost of such deleveraging that is driving Russian public opinion of policies and direction of the State in a follow up column.

10/2/16: Was Resource Boom a Boom for Commodities Exporters?

While everyone is running around with the collapsed oil prices, economists with an eye for cycles and history are starting to digest the aftermath of the passed commodities price boom that started around the beginning of the century and lasted until 2011-2012.

The issues relating to that boom are non-trivial. Commodities prices are cyclical and just as the boom turns to bust, so will the bust turn to boom. Therefore, one should really try to understand what exactly happens in both.

Andrew Warner of the IMF has a very interesting, actually fascinating, paper on the effects of the past commodities booms (the 1970s and the more recent one) on countries that are large-scale exporters of commodities. The paper relates naturally to so-called Resource Curse thesis.


A Quick Summary

So this is my summary of the main conclusions, relating to the most recent commodities boom.

Per Warner, “The global boom in hydrocarbon, metal and mineral prices since the year 2000 created huge economic rents - rents which, once invested, were widely expected to promote productivity growth in other parts of the booming economies, creating a lasting legacy of the boom years. This paper asks whether this has happened.”

Warner strips out growth in the commodities sectors in these countries and focuses on other sectors, trying to identify whether there was more rapid growth in these sectors during the boom compared to the periods before the boom.

Broadly-Speaking, he finds that “despite having vast sums to invest, GDP growth per-capita outside of the booming sectors appears on average to have been no faster during the boom years than before. The paper finds no country in which (non-resource) growth per-person has been statistically significantly higher during the boom years. In some Gulf states, oil rents have financed a migration-facilitated economic expansion with small or negative productivity gains. Overall, there is little evidence the booms have left behind the anticipated productivity transformation in the domestic economies. It appears that current policies are, overall, proving insufficient to spur lasting development outside resource intensive sectors.”


A bit more specifics

In general, across all commodities boom-impacted economies (identified by Warner as 18 countries) “…estimates of the change in growth during the boom period, [show] that the majority of countries, 11 of the 18, have seen lower growth during the boom period than before. One of these is statistically significant (Bolivia). The remaining 7 countries have seen higher growth during the boom but none of these are statistically significant. Therefore the [results show] that there is little compelling evidence to reject the null of no change during the boom period. …If the presumption was that the Natural Resource bonanza would spark an economic boom in the rest of the economy, this expectation has been disappointed, as there is no statistically significant case of higher per-capita growth during the boom years than before.”

This is quite interesting. Investment should have boomed on foot of rising revenues from commodities extraction and this should have at least trickled down to non-commodities sectors. It turns out investment did not produce growth. Why? Maybe timing is an issue? Lags in time to invest and build new capital?

Warner goes on to check.

“An alternative way to summarize this result is to aggregate across countries. The data for all countries were synchronized not by calendar years but by years since the start of the boom. … [Data] shows that although total GDP rose strongly during the boom period, GDP for the rest of the economy has been essentially flat over the boom period. …Furthermore, it is apparent …that there has been no tendency for growth in non-resource GDP to accelerate during the later years of the boom, as would be expected had there been a lagged impact of investments made during the boom period. If overcoming the curse hinges on raising productivity in the rest of the economy, the data suggest that countries are not, as a rule, successfully overcoming the curse.”

Ok, may be slower growth in non-commodities economy was simply down to that - a period of slower growth overall? Warner tests for this and finds that actually data does not support the thesis that slower growth in non-commodities sectors was caused by a general slowdown in the rate of growth.

“The data suggest that …it is simply rare to find a case of fast growth in the non-resource economy. …It emerges that only 5 of the 18 countries show growth over 2 percent per year. Hence slow growth in the rest of the economy continues to be the norm in resource-intensive economies, even during boom periods.”

Again, a paradox: greater revenues from commodities sectors should translate into greater savings rates, which should still trigger greater investment.

Warner “…examines the extent to which the previous findings can be attributed to a lack of saving, a lack of public or private domestic investment
effort out of the saving or a lack of economic return from the investment effort.”

Savings rose. “The evidence on saving rates shows that, for the 16 countries with available data, mean saving rates rose strongly in the boom period compared with the counterfactual period, from 16 percent of non-resource GDP to 27 percent. Furthermore, the current account shifted towards surplus by approximately 5 percentage points of GDP, so a significant part of the boom was saved in foreign assets.”

Investment rose (somewhat) too, in quantity: “Nevertheless, despite the rise in saving and particularly saving in foreign assets, domestic investment effort remained constant or even rose during the boom period. Focusing on the 16 countries with booms in the 2000’s, mean investment rates rose during the boom periods compared to the counterfactual periods from 22 to 27 percent of GDP. …Further, available evidence suggests that a large fraction of the investment effort during the booms in the 2000’s was domestic public investment. This is the investment that the state controls directly, and the evidence is that public investment rates remained roughly constant, rising slightly from a mean of 9 percent of GDP during the [pre boom] periods to 10 percent during the boom periods. Private investment also rose - from 14 to 18 percent of GDP. Since total GDP rose during the booms, this data suggests that, overall across the 16 economies, there remained a strong and significant effort to invest in the domestic economy.”

Conclusion? “Although investment data are not broken out [between commodities producing sectors and rest of the economy] it would be a rare occurrence if none of the extra investment fell on the non-resource economy. Therefore, although it is theoretically possible that the low impact on non-resource GDP growth is down to low investment rates, the available data do not support this view. They appear instead to point to low returns from the investment that was made.”

In other words: commodities boom revenues were wasted on poor quality investment projects that failed to boost non-commodities sectors productivity. And this includes public and private sectors investments.


Russia et al

As an aside, there is a fascinating discussion in Warner’s article about the specific group of commodities exporters - countries of the former USSR.

The reason this discussion warrants a separate treatment is the fact that “the resource-rich countries of the ex-Soviet Union require a method for testing for a curse that incorporates the special u-shaped pattern of GDP over time during the transition period. The u-shaped profile of total GDP is a natural outcome of a two-sector model in which one sector declines sharply (the state sector) while another rises gradually from a small base (the new private sector), as happened in all European post-socialist-planned economies.”

So Warner looks at Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan. And finds that “against expectations, the results indicate that the five resource intensive countries experienced slower growth during their resource boom. Growth was statistically significantly slower than resource poor countries for all except Azerbaijan. This shows little evidence that the resource booms served to accelerate GDP growth above the levels experienced by other post-soviet economies. Based on this evidence it is difficult to claim that the resource booms served to raise the path of GDP above what it would have been without the booms.”

Wait a second. Common narrative, especially in the West, as it pertains to Russian and Kazakhstan, is that both countries have *only* grown because of higher commodities prices. This is what is normally used to explain the ‘Putin effect’ - rapid growth attained by Russia during the first two terms of the Putin Presidency. Alas, data, it seems speaks the opposite: rapid growth during the first two terms of the Putin Presidency is not consistent with the causality linked to the boom in commodities prices. And the actual boom period in commodities prices for Russia seems to be associated with slower, not faster growth, compared to non-commodities boom period (controlling for effects of economic transition) and to non-commodities exporting ex-Soviet counterparts.


You can read the whole paper here: Warner, Andrew, Natural Resource Booms in the Modern Era: Is the Curse Still Alive? (November 2015). IMF Working Paper No. 15/237: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2727182.

10/2/16: Ponzi Schemes? Bah! We've Got an ETP Problem, Roger...

An interesting story that Mark Markopolos of Madoff fame, via BusinessInsider, apparently unearthing a bunch of new Ponzi schemes on the Wall Street to rival Madoff's: http://www.businessinsider.com/harry-markopolos-ponzi-scheme-bigger-than-madoff-2016-2.

Several interesting and obvious things in the article. Assuming, of course, Markopolos is not talking about the Ponzi of all Ponzi Schemes, the 'fiat money' printers at the Central Banks. But one worth a note, the little piece relating to ETPs (Exchange Traded Products) that allegedly polluted the previously relatively clean universe of U.S. listed ETFs with the European disease of synthetics.

The crux of the issue is contained in this letter: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf.

Choice quotes:

"With the mortgage-backed securities crisis... it was the bundled, flawed mortgage products that became a significant contributing factor to the negative financial events of 2008/2009. Some ETPs contain very similar characteristics to the illiquid mortgage-backed securities. Other ETPs are based on very risky trading and settlement processes that can produce systemic challenges to the ETP industry, thus the financial markets."

Dire stuff. We get more: "There has been an exponential growth rate in the number of ETPs since the financial crisis. Unfortunately, unlike mortgage-backed securities, which were sold to more professional investor classes, ETPs have been marketed on a large-scale to retail investors, their mutual and pension funds and financial advisors are advocating the products to even their retail customers." It's grannies and pensions, not Lehmans & Bears that are now at risk. Congratulations, folks: financial engineering, having plundered taxpayers and savers is now munching through retailers, aka ordinary folks, directly.

Worse: "...the most active ETPs are based on the important components of the U.S. capital markets, i.e. S&P 500 securities. A collapse or disturbance caused by these products could strike directly at the heart of the U.S. financial system during the next financial crisis through blue chip securities." Munching through ordinary folks requires levering more risks into core equities and asset markets too. So if you haven't bought the Killer White of risk yourself, via links to underlying equities and other retail assets,  the Killer White of risk bought you anyway.

What's the problem if they can just sell underlying and clear off the decks? Ah, that 'selling the underlying'. "The vast majority of ETPs have very low levels of assets under management and illiquid trading volumes. Many of these have illiquid underlying assets and a large group of ETPs are
based on derivatives that are not backed by physical assets such as stocks, bonds or commodities,
but rather swaps or other types of complex contracts."

Hello, Kitty... no wait... Kitty is a rabid tiger! Back in 2011 I wrote about these types of funds in relation to the European investors here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.com/2011/08/14082011-warning-on-synthetic-etfs.html.

And the latest revelations are absolutely mirror image of the concerns raised in 2011: "Many of these products may have been designed to take what were originally illiquid assets from the books of operators, bundle them into an ETP to make them appear liquid and sell them off to unsuspecting investors. The data suggests this is evidenced by ETPs that are formed, have enough volume in the early stage of their existence to sell shares, but then barely trade again while still remaining listed for sale. This is reminiscent of the mortgage-backed securities bundles sold previous to the last financial crisis in 2008."

Garbage in. Balancesheet cleansed. You, retailer, holding the trash.

This can get very very ugly...

Note: in addition to the above letter, there are several other letters released by SEC detailing the problems in ETPs universe. Here are the links:

• http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-11-15/s71115-19.pdf Letter S-7-11-15 (2015)
• https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-16-15/s71615-60.pdf Letter S-7-16-15 (2015)
• http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=FSOC-2014-0001-0015&attachmentNumber=1&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf Cover Letter from March 2015
• https://www.sec.gov/comments/265-29/26529-49.pdf Letter 265-29
• And there is a good post on the subject here: http://prograssing.com/news/as-madoff-airs-on-tv-two-anonymous-whistleblowers-are-pounding-on-the-secs-door-again/.

10/2/16: IMF to Ukraine: Sort Thyselves!

IMF on Ukraine (and it is narsty):

The only surprising bit is the tone. It is quite frankly unbelievable to think that the IMF were rationally expecting substantial and visible progress on such a tough and 'sticky' issue as corruption to be delivered within such a short span of time. Their key concern is, of course, warranted. But the sharpness of the tone suggests IMF is entering into an internal political dogfight between Ukrainian Presidency and the Government and it is siding, seemingly, with the President.

9/2/16: Currency Devaluation and Small Countries: Some Warning Shots for Ireland

In recent years, and especially since the start of the ECB QE programmes, euro depreciation vis-a-vis other key currencies, namely the USD, has been a major boost to Ireland, supporting (allegedly) exports growth and improving valuations of our exports. However, exports-led recovery has been rather problematic from the point of view of what has been happening on the ground, in the real economy. In part, this effect is down to the source of exports growth - the MNCs. But in part, it seems, the effect is also down to the very nature of our economy ex-MNCs.

Recent research from the IMF (see: Acevedo Mejia, Sebastian and Cebotari, Aliona and Greenidge, Kevin and Keim, Geoffrey N., External Devaluations: Are Small States Different? (November 2015). IMF Working Paper No. 15/240: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2727185) investigated “whether the macroeconomic effects of external devaluations have systematically different effects in small states, which are typically more open and less diversified than larger peers.”

Notice that this is about ‘external’ devaluations (via the exchange rate channel) as opposed to ‘internal’ devaluations (via real wages and costs channel). Also note, the data set for the study does not cover euro area or Ireland.

The study found “that the effects of devaluation on growth and external balances are not significantly different between small and large states, with both groups equally likely to experience expansionary [in case of devaluation] or contractionary [in case of appreciation] outcomes.” So far, so good.

But there is a kicker: “However, the transmission channels are different: devaluations in small states are more likely to affect demand through expenditure compression, rather than expenditure-switching channels. In particular, consumption tends to fall more sharply in small states due to adverse income effects, thereby reducing import demand.”

Which, per IMF team means that the governments of small open economies experiencing devaluation of their exchange rate (Ireland today) should do several things to minimise the adverse costs spillover from devaluation to households/consumers. These are:

1. “Tight incomes policies after the devaluation ― such as tight monetary and government wage policies―are crucial for containing inflation and preventing the cost-push inflation from taking hold more permanently. …While tight wage policies are certainly important in the public sector as the largest employer in many small states, economy-wide consensus on the need for wage restraint is also desirable.” Let’s see: tight wages policies, including in public sector. Not in GE16 you won’t! So one responsive policy is out.
2. “To avoid expenditure compression exacerbating poverty in the most vulnerable households, small countries should be particularly alert to these adverse effects and be ready to address them through appropriately targeted and efficient social safety nets.” Which means that you don’t quite slash and burn welfare system in times of devaluations. What’s the call on that for Ireland over the last few years? Not that great, in fairness.
3. “With the pick-up in investment providing the strongest boost to growth in expansionary devaluations, structural reforms to remove bottlenecks and stimulate post-devaluation investment are important.” Investment? Why, sure we’d like to have some, but instead we are having continued boom in assets flipping by vultures and tax-shenanigans by MNCs paraded in our national accounts as ‘investment’. 
4. “A favorable external environment is important in supporting growth following devaluations.” Good news, everyone - we’ve found one (so far) thing that Ireland does enjoy, courtesy of our links to the U.S. economy and courtesy of us having a huge base of MNCs ‘exporting’ to the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. Never mind this is all about tax optimisation. Exports are booming. 
5. “The devaluation and supporting policies should be credible enough to stem market perceptions of any further devaluation or policy adjustments.” Why is it important to create strong market perception that further devaluations won’t take place? Because “…expectations of further devaluations or an increase in the sovereign risk premium would push domestic interest rates higher, imposing large costs in terms of investment, output contraction and financial instability.” Of course, we - as in Ireland - have zero control over both quantum of devaluation and its credibility, because devaluation is being driven by the ECB. But do note that, barring ‘sufficient’ devaluation, there will be costs in the form of higher cost of capital and government and real economic debt.It is worth noting that these costs will be spread not only onto Ireland, but across the entire euro area. Should we get ready for that eventuality? Or should we just continue to ignore the expected path of future interest rates, as we have been doing so far? 

I would ask your friendly GE16 candidates for their thoughts on the above… for the laughs…