2/9/16: Interest Rates, Financial Cycles and the Real Economy

Claudio Borio and his team at the Bank for International Settlements have just published another interesting working paper, titled “Monetary policy, the financial cycle and ultra-low interest rates” (BIS Working Papers No 569 by Mikael Juselius, Claudio Borio, Piti Disyatat and Mathias Drehmann Monetary and Economic Department July 2016).


In the paper, the authors ask whether “the prevailing unusually and persistently low real interest rates reflect a decline in the natural rate of interest as commonly thought?”

The authors “argue that this is only part of the story. The critical role of financial factors in influencing medium-term economic fluctuations must also be taken into account.” In other words, the authors attempt to control for purely financial factors driving interest rates first, and then consider predominantly real economic variables-determined rates (natural rates).

You might think that the currently low rates are facilitating the real economy, right? If so, then actual observed (already low) rates today should be coincident with even lower ‘natural’ rates (if real economy drags down the financial economy). Alas, as the authors find: accounting for the different sources of pressure on the interest rates (financial vs natural), in the case of the United States, “yields estimates of the natural rate that are higher and, at least since 2000, decline by less.”

Oops… so persistently low interest rates today are below natural rates and reflect the needs of the financial intermediation sector.

Notice the difference between the observed rates (yellow) and the ‘natural rates’ (red). Or as the lads from BIS put it: “As a result, policy rates have been persistently and systematically below this measure.”

But never mind. With time, things should get rebalanced, as the authors also find that “monetary policy, through the financial cycle, has a long-lasting impact on output and, by implication, on real interest rates. Therefore, a narrative that attributes the decline in real rates primarily to an exogenous fall in the natural rate is incomplete. The influence of monetary and financial factors should not be ignored. Exploiting these results, an illustrative counterfactual experiment suggests that a monetary policy rule that takes financial developments systematically into account during both good and bad times could help dampen the financial cycle, leading to higher output even in the long run.”

Yah, yah… lots of talk. What’s the meaning? Ok, the authors take two drivers of financial sector impact on the real economy: leverage and credit.

Leverage gap is defined as basically a credit to assets ratio for the economy - or how much credit does economy create per each unit of assets. Meanwhile debt service gap is the ratio of debt service payment, or more precisely, “the ratio of interest payments plus amortisations to income”.

To understand the dynamics of the monetary (interest rates) policy impact, the authors do a couple of experiments. The main one is worth discussing. The authors start with a leverage gap of -10%, so there is an excess of assets over credit in the economy and hence there is room to borrow, driving leverage gap up. Note: as the authors point out, the -10% leverage gap assumption is consistent with historical reality: in the late 80s and mid-2000s, “at their trough”, leverage gaps were -11% in 1987 and -20% in 2006 respectively.

So, as I noted above, “a negative leverage gap initially induces a credit boom that then turns into a bust… Initially, the negative leverage gap is followed by rapid credit growth, which in turn feeds into a positive, albeit small, increase in private sector expenditure. But as credit outgrows output, the credit-to-GDP ratio and with it the debt service gap start to rise, putting an increasing drag on output and asset prices. A severe and drawn-out recession follows.”

The dynamics match the Great Recession: “…at the start of 2005, the real-time estimate of the leverage gap was significantly negative while the debt-service gap was positive. Given this starting point, the adjustment dynamics of the system would have predicted much of the subsequent output decline during the Great Recession. This suggests that the recession was not a “black swan” caused by an exogenous shock but, rather, the outcome of the endogenous dynamics of the system – a reflection of the interaction between the financial factors and the
real economy.”

And here is the actual run of annual estimates of the two gaps:

Remember, the cyclicality? Negative leverage gap —> credit boom —> positive leverage gap and positive debt service gap —> bust.

Good thing we are not going to repeat THAT cycle this time around, right?.. Not with all the low interest rates not being lower than ‘natural’ rate… right?

2/9/16: Remember Banks Stress Tests: Tripple Farce and Still No Joy for Ireland

Couple of older, but still relevant notes have stacked up on my virtual desktop over the last few weeks. Catching up with these, here is a post on the banking sector 'bill of un-health' produced this summer by the EBA.


European banks street tests conducted by EBA last month combined the usual old farce with the novel new farce. Just to make sure the punters were not too scared of the European economy’s champions.

Based on Basel III criteria - CT1 ratio of 7% post shock - all but two banks (Italy’s Banca Monte dei Paschi di SAiena Spa and Austria’s Raiffeisen Zentralbank) have managed to escape the tests with CT1 ratios post-shock within the Basel III parameters. Or in other words, everyone passed, save for two who didn’t. Systemically, therefore, EBA can assure us all that euro area banking is just fine. Nothing to see, nothing to worry about.

However, the farce of the tests goes deep than this predicable and historically conditioned outcome. Because this time around, EBA no longer even bothered with determining who ‘failed’ and who did not. Like in Breznev’s USSR, in the EBUSSR, ‘friendship wins’ and ‘no one loses’.

There was another predictable trend in the EBA results. No matter how ‘flexible’ the models fort testing get, no matter how being the ‘stress assumptions’ get, Irish and Italian banks remain the sickest puppies in the entire ward of already not too healthy ones:

But, hey, despite much of the stock markets hullaballoo over recent months, the bidding of banks’ equity has not really done much in terms of beefing sufficiently their capital buffers. So here are some comparatives on 2014 stress tests against current ones.

Note: 2014 stress tests estimated impact of a shock out to 2016, while this year tests are estimating impact out to 2018.

So behold (via @FT):

Italy:

• 2016 state: Transitional CET1 ratio of 6.14 per cent v 8.42 per cent average - under performing the average by 228 bps
• 2018 state: Fully loaded CET1 ratio of 7.62 per cent v 9.2 per cent average - under performing the average by 158 bps
• Signals improvement, on the surface, but this is a cross comparative over tow somewhat different benchmarks

Ireland:

• 2016 state: Transitional CET1 ratio of 7.05 per cent v 8.42 per cent average, undershooting the average by 137 bps
• 2018 state: Fully loaded CET1 ratio of 5.21 per cent v 9.2 per cent average, underperforming by 399 bps
• Signalling, even if we are to totally disregard differential quality, this does not bode too well for Irish financial ‘giants’

FT did provide a handy chart showing changes in stress test shock-level CET1 ratios for Adverse Stress Scenarios in 2014 tests and 2016 tests (never mind the ‘actual’ levels as of 2015, as these are subject to market valuations etc).

What the above shows?

For a tiny banking system, Ireland’s one is sicker than any other. And this comes on foot of years of repairs, recapitalisations, arrears resolutions etc etc etc. Green Jerseying ain’t working, folks. All Spanish banks are performing better than the two Irish flagships. Majority of Italian banks (save for one) are better than the two Irish ‘giants’. All Portuguese banks are stronger than the Irish systemically-important institutions. And none have spent anything close to Ireland on ‘repairing’ their lenders.

Maybe, if we wait long enough, EBA will include a bunch of Greek and Cypriot banks next… to make ours look better…

2/9/16: Getting Back to the Blog

Folks, the joys of moving to my new job have been quite all-consuming over the month of August, and the joys of preparing for the move - over June and July - were testing as well. Now, with things more settled, it is time for me to come back to blogging, so stay tuned and read.

30/7/16: Europe's Bank Stability in Question

My comment for Euromoney on banking sector risks: http://www.euromoney.com/Article/3574602/Europes-bank-stability-is-in-question-say-country-risk-experts.html.

29/7/16: Tax Regime, Apple, Fraud?

We have finally arrived: a Nobel Prize winner, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank (1997-2000) on Bloomberg, calling Apple's use of the Irish Tax Regime 'a fraud': http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-28/stiglitz-calls-apple-s-profit-reporting-in-ireland-a-fraud?utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%253D=socialflow-twitter-business.

This gotta be doing marvels to our reputation as a place for doing business and for trading into Europe and the U.S.

The same as Facebook's newest troubles: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/facebook-tax-bill-over-ireland-operation-could-cost-5-billion-1.2738677.

But do remember, officially, Ireland is not a tax haven, nor is there, officially, anything questionable going on anywhere here. Just 26.3 percent growth in GDP per annum, and booming corporate tax revenues that the Minister for Finance can't explain.

22/7/16: Brexit сближает Ирландии...

My comment for Kommersant (in Russian) on Brexit risks for Ireland: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3043700.

21/7/16: Article 50: Facts

There is a lot of poorly informed nonsense being pushed around the media (especially 'new media') about Article 50 process relating to the Brexit. The best, most cogent and brief summary of what actually is involved in this process was provided back in February by the Open Europe think-tank here: http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/the-mechanics-of-leaving-the-eu-explaining-article-50/.

20/7/16: McKinsey's "Generation Worse"...

A new study from McKinsey looks at the cross-generational distribution of income as a form of new ‘inequality’, in words of the authors: “an aspect of inequality that has received relatively little attention, perhaps because prior to the 2008 financial crisis less than 2 percent of households in advanced economies were worse off than similar households in previous years. That has now changed: two-thirds of households in the United States and Western Europe were in segments of the income distribution whose real market incomes in 2014 were flat or had fallen compared with 2005.”

In other words, McKinsey folks are looking at the “proportion of households in advanced economies with flat or falling incomes” - the generational cohorts that are no better than their predecessors.

Key findings are frightening: “Between 65 and 70 percent of households in 25 advanced economies, the equivalent of 540 million to 580 million people, were in segments of the income distribution whose real market incomes—their wages and income from capital—were flat or had fallen in 2014 compared with 2005. This compared with less than 2 percent, or fewer than ten million people, who experienced this phenomenon between 1993 and 2005.”

So that promise of the ‘sharing economy’ and the ‘gig-economy’ where people today are enabled to derive income (and thus wealth) from hereto under-utilised ‘assets’… pwah! not doing much. The ‘most empowered’ - web and gig-economy wise cohorts? Ah, they are actually the “worst-hit” ones. “Today’s younger generation is at risk of ending up poorer than their parents. Most population segments experienced flat or falling incomes in the 2002–12 decade but young, less-educated workers were hardest hit”.

For those of us who, like myself, tend to be libertarian in our view of the Government, McKinsey study tests some of our accepted ‘wisdoms’: “Government policy and labor-market practices helped determine the extent of flat or falling incomes. In Sweden, for example, where the government intervened to preserve jobs, market incomes fell or were flat for only 20 percent, while disposable income advanced for almost everyone. In the United States, government taxes and transfers turned a decline in market incomes for 81 percent of income segments into an increase in disposable income for nearly all households.”

Except, may be it did not, because counting in disposable income while allowing for taxes and subsidies is notoriously difficult and imprecise. And may be, just may be, all the fiscal imbalances that were accumulated in the process of achieving these supports in some (many) countries will still have to be paid by someone some day?

There is a reduced connection between current growth metrics and income outcomes on the ground (don’t we know as much here in Ireland, with 26.3% jump in GDP in 2015?): “Before the recession, GDP growth contributed about 18 percentage points to median household income growth, on average, in the United States and Europe. In the seven years after the recession, that contribution fell to four percentage points, and even these gains were eroded by labor market and demographic shifts.”

And the forward outlook? Bleak: “Longer-run demographic and labor trends will continue to weigh on income advancement. Even if economies resume their historical high-growth trajectory, we project that 30 to 40 percent of income segments may not experience market income gains in the next decade if labor-market shifts such as workplace automation accelerate. If the slow growth conditions of 2005–12 persist, as much as 70 to 80 percent of income segments in advanced economies may experience flat or falling market incomes to 2025.”

There are some wrinkles in the study. For example, in the U.S. case - cross time comparatives do not provide for the same data base, as pre-2014 data does not include state and local taxes. VAT and sales taxes are omitted across the board. And some other, but overall, the paper is pretty solid and very interesting.

So here is the key summary chart, positing the massive jump in the numbers of households on the declining side of market incomes:

And the chart showing that the taxes and transfers side of income supports is no longer sustainable over time:

Which brings us to the main problem: on the current trend line, politics of income supports from the fiscal policy side are unlikely to be able to contain growth in political discontent. Advanced economies are heading for serious tests of democratic institutions in years to come. Buckle your seat belts: the ride is going to get much rougher.

15/7/16: A Booming Tax Haven? And Why Not?

Yes, we all know, Irish GDP in 2015 grew by an officially idiotic 26%. And yes, I am no longer gracing these illusionary / delusionary numbers with an attempt at any serious analysis. Doing so would be too big of an intellectual subsidy to the world of Irish officialdom. So here are two quite opposite (in their top-line accuracy) views of the same problem, that both, in the end, arrive at the same conclusion:

One view is from Fortune magazine http://fortune.com/2016/07/13/ireland-tax-haven-gdp-up/ where the headline says all you need to know

And another is from the Irish Times, that rows in with a more 'diplomatic' (aka - easier to chew by the Dons of the Irish Civil Service) discourse that is worth reading, despite it containing some pretty delusional (see my twitter stream from today on this) statements: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-s-gdp-figures-why-26-economic-growth-is-a-problem-1.2722170#.V4i7kuyVTic.twitter.

In the nutshell, Fortune got it right at the top level, Irish Times got some beefier discussion of the details.

13/7/16: Xenophobic Britain, Good Europe Mythology

You know the shrill of the deeply wounded 'Remain' supporters from the UK Referendum that did not go their way? Ah, yes: "Older Britain, that won, is xenophobic, racist, anti-migrant. And the young Britain, that lost, is the opposite of that."

Ok, there are stereotypes. And then there are stereotypes. The 'old Britain' that is allegedly such a terrible place is the one that built one of the most multicultural societies in the world. That's right: the young Britain was not even born when that happened.

But never mind history, here's the most current (1Q 2016) data on attitudes to multiculturalism from the not-so-pro-Brexit source, PewResearch:

By opposition to multi-ethnic society, the UK ranks 5th in the group of these countries, tied with on-so-progressively-liberal Germany, and better than core-European-values Italy and Holland, ahead of the beacon of European democracy Poland. By actual support for multi-ethnicity in society, the UK ranks third, ahead of all other European countries in the survey other than Sweden.

Of course, the U.S. leads all the countries in terms of support for multi-ethnic society. Not surprisingly.

Here's another interesting snapshot from the same study:

So if we are to look at the Left-Right gap, the UK is at the widest differential in opinions on diversity in Europe. But, and here is a major but, with 27% of Conservatives (Right) supporting diversity, it has the most 'liberal' Right in Europe after Sweden. Oh, and notice the little blow up for the 'xenophobic Republicans in the U.S.' meme - that too is absolute bullshit, since U.S. conservatives are more supportive of ethnic diversity liberal / Left Europeans except those in Sweden and the UK.


You can glimpse few more insights into the Pew survey here: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/in-views-of-diversity-many-europeans-are-less-positive-than-americans/.

11/7/16: Russian Strategy Change? Perhaps... and Lets Hope So

A rather interesting analysis from The Moscow Times on the emerging directional change in Russian geopolitical strategy: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/a-modest-deal-vladimir-putins-new-d233tente-op-ed/574322.html.

As someone who consistently stressed the need for both, Russia and the West, to (1) actively seek cooperative resolution to the ongoing process of confrontational politics, and (2) pursue consistent policy of de-escalating relations, with a specific focus on potential sources of risks (e.g. accidental encounters in the international air space or waters), recent change in rhetoric from Moscow is certainly welcome. In time, I suspect, we will see more comprehensive strategy emerging from Kremlin statements, but for now, even less-than-comprehensive statements are a good sign.

As a note of caution, I do not agree with the entire set of the author conclusions. Just highlighting the important nature of change. The degree of risks severity here is highlighted by a range of surveys and public opinion views, here is a snapshot of investors' key concerns:

In this environment, last thing anyone needs is more geopolitical risks.

10/7/16: Europe's Banks: Dinosaurs On Their Last Legs?

Europe's banks have been back in the crosshair of the markets in recent weeks, with new attention to their multiple problems catalysed by the Brexit vote.

I spoke on the matter in a brief interview with UTV here: http://utv.ie/playlists/default.aspx?bcid=5026776052001.

Now, Bloomberg have put together a (very concise) summary of some of the key problems the banks face: "Europe's banks have been a focal point of investor skittishness since Britons voted to leave the European Union, but reasons to be worried about financial firms pre-date the referendum. Whether it be the mountain of non-performing loans, the challenge from fintech firms and alternative lenders encroaching on what was once their turf, or rock bottom interest rates eroding margins, the problems facing Europe's lenders are mammoth."

To summarise the whole rotten lot: European banks (as a sector)

• Cannot properly lend and price risk (hence, a gargantuan mountain of Non-Performing Loans sitting on their books that they can't deleverage out, exemplified by Italian, Slovenian, Spanish, Portuguese, Cypriot, Greek, Irish, and even, albeit to a lesser extent, German, Dutch, Belgian and Austrian banks);
• Cannot make profit even in this extremely low funding cost environment (because they cannot lend properly, while controlling their operating costs, and instead resort to 'lending' money to governments at negative yields);
• Cannot structure their capital (CoCos madness anyone?);
• Cannot compete with more agile fintech challengers (because the dinosaur mentality and hierarchical structures of traditional banking prevents real innovation permeating banks' strategies and operations);
• Cannot reform their business models to reflect changing nature of their customers demands (because they simply no longer can think of their customers needs); and
• Cannot succeed in their traditional markets and services (despite being heavily shielded from competition by regulators and subsidised by the governments).

Instead of whingeing about the banks' plight, we should focus on the banks' resound failures and stop giving custom to the patrician incumbents. Let competition restructure Europe's banking sector. The only thing that sustains Europe's banks today is national- and ECB-level regulatory protectionism that contains competition within the core set of banking services. It is only a matter of time before M&As and organic build up of fintech players will blow this cozy cartel up from the inside. So regulators today have two options: keep pretending that this won't happen and keep granting banks a license to milk their customers and monetary systems; or open the hatches and let the fresh air in.