BIS on demographics and asset prices

The Bank for International Settlements has published an excellent working paper on the effects of population age structure on home prices. Here’s how the author summarizes his findings (emphasis added):

The results suggest that global asset prices are likely to face substantial demographic headwinds in the next forty years. The theory is straightforward: House prices are determined jointly with financial asset prices. Hence, if house prices face headwinds, so should financial asset prices. Using the estimated coefficients and global population forecasts, asset prices would face headwinds up to a full percentage point. This headwind is substantial, but based on historical returns would not imply real asset price declines…

Though the results do not imply absolute real price declines, they suggest that in the next forty years house prices in advanced economies will face a more difficult environment than in the past forty years.

One of the most important aspects of the study, and of most studies of age structure’s effects on economic and financial market outcomes, is the illumination of the impacts that baby boom generations have had in different countries. For example, here’s a graphic from the paper showing the impact on real housing values over the past thirty years (appreciation or depreciation in basis points per year), and as forecasted for the next thirty, in the major English speaking countries (the projections are even more pessimistic for many non-English speaking countries):

We can’t overstate how important it is for savers, investors, retirees, business leaders, and policymakers to grasp the dynamics implied by a chart like this, as it calls into question each and every assumption about future nominal asset returns based on the last thirty years of data — assumptions that are widely used and abused by the financial services industry, in our experience!

Human beings are innately backward looking when making predictions. That’s OK if we are diligent about investigating the hows and the whys of past experience, and assessing how the relevant factors are likely to behave in the future (and just as importantly, being attentive and responsive to the many factors and possible outcomes that we are as yet unaware of). But it’s rather dangerous when we just scratch the surface of historical data in order to  produce statistical claims (usually for marketing purposes in our industry) about the future. Garbage in, garbage out. Unfortunately, our industry will continue to create and peddle garbage as long as clients are willing to be over charged for it…

In the matter at hand, the essential fact is that most of our prevailing expectations about economic and market outcomes (and prudent public policy) were formed in recent decades, as baby boomers moved through their early and middle adult years. Those expectations could be turned upside down as boomer generations head into retirement and old age in many countries during the decades ahead. Any long term investment process that ignores this secular dynamic is likely to create more downside risk than intended.

A few caveats on the paper’s implications, the last three from the BIS author:

• As touched on in our recent interview with Diane Macunovich, there are many different ways to slice and dice demographic data, and different methods can produce very different results.
• Other non-demographic factors have clearly played a role in the past, sometimes much stronger than age structure effects.
• Technology and lifestyle changes — for example, higher typical retirement ages driven by technology and/or concerns about transfer payments – are hard to predict and account for.
• Predicting age structure effects forty years into the future is hazardous, and long term forecasting has a dismal track record.

That last point is also extremely relevant to debates over national deficits and debt. Apparently it’s accepted wisdom at the current BIS that future social benefits will have to be cut dramatically in advanced nations:

In the government sector ageing related entitlement spending is currently set on an unsustainable path as Cecchetti et al. (2010) shows. Hence, lowering old age government benefits seems to be inevitable. Consequently, the next old generation might have to run down their assets in old age more aggressively than previous old generations as their private and public entitlements would be much less generous. This would exacerbate the negative impact of ageing on asset prices.

That doesn’t really make sense though. If transfer payments to retirees are cut in such a way that existing financial assets have to be drawn down more aggressively, then all else equal, you’re going to see asset deflation and rising pessimism. If powerful enough to be deflationary, then spending new money into existence would be an appropriate response — which would mean (ignoring valid political arguments over how and where government spending should occur) that the transfer payments should never have been cut! 

So this passage and the paper it’s based on look like yet more hand wringing over cursory statistics by the debt phobes. But as we noted above, cursory statistics are garbage, and that’s true whether we’re talking about financial services, economics, or public policy. For a more complete fisking of the Cecchetti et al paper, see here.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”) is a Pennsylvania registered investment advisor that offers discretionary investment management to individuals and institutions. This publication is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy securities, or to engage in any investment strategy.

Business Conditions, Sentiment, the USD and Gold

File under confirmation bias:

The Philly Fed’s Business Conditions Index is still hanging tough after its most recent update, though it’s still slightly negative relative to historical data.

A point of interest we came across on the Philly Fed’s site is its regional July Business Outlook survey (pdf). The apparent downturn in sentiment in early 2010 appears to coincide with our “strong dollar” call in January 2010, which was based heavily on increasing verbal hawkishness (pdf) from the Obama administration on fiscal matters:

The timing could very well be coincidental, but we think sentiment and fiscal expectations are related at some level, which may be supported by some other interesting features in that graph, from a “sectoral balances” point of view.*  

One is that business sentiment was most buoyant at the time of President Bush and the GOP’s major fiscal easings in 2001 and 2003 (blue circle); the other is the steady downward trend in  sentiment as the Clinton administration’s and Dole-Gingrich GOP’s widely revered budget surpluses were materializing (green line):

Again, this is purely circumstantial evidence, and would require much more analysis to see if anything academic can be made of it. But it does fit nicely with the theoretical frameworks we’re relying on to guide clients through these “interesting times”.

It might also be reassuring that the USD has taken a slight break from its strengthening trend (the red line below is the inverted trade weighted USD index inverted, and the blue line is foreign commercial paper, a measure of foreign credit and business activity in the private sector).

While it’s not at a level that augurs an imminent return to the headiness of 2007 and early 2008, some stability at current levels would be a welcome sign for the world’s credit, goods, and services markets:

There’s also an interesting new bit of evidence that supports our Nov-Jan warnings of a strengthening USD and weakening gold prices. From the FT:

…more than 10 [banks] based in Europe…swapped gold with the Bank for International Settlements in a series of unusual deals that caused confusion in the gold market and left traders scratching their heads…

The Financial Times has learnt that the swaps, which were initiated by the BIS, came as the so-called “central banks’ bank” sought to obtain a return on its huge US dollar-denominated holdings. The BIS asked the commercial banks to pledge a gold swap as guarantee for the dollar deposits they were taking from the Basel-based institution…

Some analysts speculated that the swap deals were a surreptitious bail-out of the European banking system ahead of last week’s publication of stress tests…

…two central bank officials said some of the commercial banks…needed the US dollar funding and were keen to act as a counterparty with the BIS. The gold swaps began in December and surged in January, when the Greek debt crisis erupted and European commercial banks were facing funding problems…

In other words, large banks on the continent were more than willing to swap gold for USDs with the BIS when facing credit strains and stress tests. This is something to keep in mind among all the gold bug chatter — unbacked paper or “fiat” money can become dear, even relative to precious metals. Witness gold’s long term decline against the Yen as Japan’s balance sheet recession and negative turn in age structure unfolded:

 The wrench, as we always try to point out, is the USD’s global reserve status. More dovish monetary policy in the U.S. (which can only be accomplished via renewed “quantitative easing” and its distorting impacts) could very well stoke renewed inflationary pressures abroad, with feedback effects on certain components of U.S. price levels. In fact, the deep decline in Yen per gold ounce might have been driven in part by the absence of Yen carry trade mechanisms. Once those mechanisms were in place and more widely available (circa late 1990s or early 200s?), Yen-gold was freed to the upside.

The fact that the USD is the traditional carry trade currency is a reminder that USD-gold could still have plenty of room to run, and that uncertainty is why we are not placing any bets on gold prices, either to the upside or the downside. But to the extent that any rally is driven by Ponzi-style leverage — which is still quite possible due to the anemic and slow moving nature of some of the reform measures in Dodd-Frank – gold will, like residential real estate before it, eventually come crashing back down to more normal levels.

It may even be near “normal” levels now. The caveat we’re trying to put forth is that if fiscal, trade, or monetary policymakers err on the hawkish side in the next five to ten years, then USDs will be in scarcer supply, and all else equal, that would mean lower prices generally — even for gold.

One last note — preliminary second quarter GDP came in light at 2.4%. This is a steep fall from recent quarters, and it too lends some support to our argument (and others’) that federal stimulus played a significant role in driving and/or supporting private sector activity in 2H09 and early 2010.  That’s why we think that any concerted move towards fiscal tightening in the quarters ahead — whether through tax cut expirations (we’re talking to you, Democrats) or spending cuts (ahem-ahem-ahem, GOP) — will substantially raise the probability of a second recession.

* We note that the New School’s History of Economic Thought (HET) website has yet to publish anything on the recently deceased Wynne Godley, who helped to articulate the intersectoral balances approach. As with age structure, underappreciation implies to us that Godley’s balances framework can be put to an investor’s advantage. 

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”) is a Pennsylvania registered investment advisor that offers discretionary investment management to individuals and institutions. This publication is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy securities, or to engage in any investment strategy. You should consult with your personal financial advisor before engaging in any investment activity. Any mention of investable companies and/or securities is incidental and for illustrative purposes only.

Moving the Policy Discussion Forward

Some interesting articles on the state and direction of economic policy:

David Frum challenges fellow conservatives to come up with compelling policy alternatives to Paul Krugman’s recommendations:

 …if Krugman’s direct government expenditure is not a very good policy answer, his dire economic warning remains a haunting policy question. What can we do to accelerate economic growth and job creation? For those of us on the free-market side of the debate, the question is even more haunting: What’s our countervailing idea? And if our countervailing idea is tax cuts, what is our reply to the obvious rebuttal that the Bush tax cuts have been in effect through the whole of this crisis, seemingly without effect?

Marshall Auerback outlines a bevy of progressive policies in response:

…Professor James K. Galbraith sets out some useful criteria for good stimulus:

1. Open-ended support for the current operations of state and local governments…

2. Comprehensive foreclosure relief…

3. Increased Social Security benefits…and a cut in the eligibility age of Medicare…

4. A payroll tax holiday to restore effectively the purchasing power of working families. By setting the payroll tax rate at zero (and letting the government write a check to the Social Security Trust Fund for the uncollected sums), tax relief can be delivered at large scale and with immediate effect…

…And finally deploy government spending in a way which REDUCES unemployment, rather than arises as a consequence of it. We therefore suggest a new approach: a Job Guarantee Program. The U.S. Government can proceed directly to zero unemployment by hiring all of the labor that cannot find private sector employment. Furthermore, by fixing the wage paid under this ELR program at a level that does not disrupt existing labor markets, i.e., a wage level close to the existing minimum wage, substantive price stability can be expected…As we have argued before, the Job Guarantee program should remain a permanent feature of our economy, in effect acting as a buffer stock to put a floor under unemployment, whilst maintaining price stability whereby government offers a fixed wage which does not “outbid” the private sector, but simply creates a stabilizing floor and thereby prevents deflation. [Many on the right might reflexively think of such a program as socialism run amok, but as we've pointed out more than once, an employer-of-last-resort program has been proposed on the right by Nobel economist Ned Phelps. The idea is definitely worth a closer bipartisan look.]

There are good ideas out there, but there is a distinct failure of political imagination and courage to implement them. With any hope Frum’s provocative article will spur a healthy discussion on the possible solutions, rather than a retreat to tired, discredited economic shibboleths.

But Brad DeLong gives little hope that Auerback’s retreat can be avoided:

…Congress is balking. Republican legislators from states with double-digit unemployment have put party above country. Blue Dog Democrats, who think that they can marginally improve their chance of gaining more terms in office if they publicly worry about the deficit to the exclusion of all else, have put self above country and party. And, significantly, the Obama Administration has never offered a grand bargain for tax increases and entitlement caps in the future in return for more spending now to restore full employment.

We’ll toss a few cents into the discussion in an attempt to show that we can and should overcome irrational deficit phobia (yes, there are sometimes rational reasons to fear government deficits), we’re likely to make little progress towards ensuring a strong and durable economic recovery, and ironically, we’re likely to end up in a worse public debt position. 

On Frum’s question, Randy Wray has pointed out (pdf) that an accelerating pace of federal government tax receipts followed the Bush tax cuts and recovery, and may have contributed to the intersectoral strains that eventually resulted in financial collapse (emphasis added):

Every recession since World War II was preceded by a government surplus or a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, including the recession following the Clinton surpluses. Recovery from that recession resulted from renewed domestic private sector deficits, although growth was also fueled by government budget deficits that grew to 4 percent of GDP. However…the Bush recovery caused tax revenues to grow so fast that the budget deficit fell through 2007, setting up the conditions for yet another economic collapse…

In 2005, tax revenues were growing at an accelerated rate of 15 percent per year—far above the GDP growth rate (hence, reducing nongovernment sector income) and above the government spending growth rate (5 percent)…this fiscal tightening was followed by a downturn—which automatically slowed growth of tax revenue.

Thus, conservatives might not be painted into as severe a policy corner as Frum fears. But that’s true only if they can let go of their (newfound, circa 2006?) deficit phobia and escape the intellectual tyranny of Ricardian equivalence. We think that’s easily done, but there are two basic concepts that need to be framed out before the policy conversation can make any significant progress.

First, we need to frame our modern financial economy as Knut Wicksell did over 100 years ago. There are two ‘interest rates’ at work, one on the credit (financial) side, and one on the real (economy) side. The financial rate (in reality, there are many of them) is determined in large part by the cost of a marginal unit of money. The economic rate (in reality there are many of these too) is determined by the expected return on a marginal unit of investment.

When the financial rate is below the economic rate, the result is inflation (greater expected returns on investment lead to increased demand for credit, and money eventually becomes less valuable relative to real goods and services). When it’s above the economic rate, the result is deflation (negative expected net returns on investment lead to decreased demand for credit and increased demand for saving; money thus becomes more valuable relative to real goods and services).

Wicksell’s original thesis has been tweaked to acknowledge that inflation and deflation are unlikely to persist indefinitely. We also need to incorporate the idea of leverage. Low systemic leverage (the amount of credit relative to money) implies a higher cost of credit and lower inflationary pressures. When there’s a high degree of leverage, inflationary swings can be exaggerated, and can turn sharply and suddenly into deflation (Minsky’s “Ponzi finance” or Austrian’s “crack up boom”, of which 2008-2009 was a prime example).

Second, we need to get a better grasp of money — what it is, where it comes from, and how it works. 

Under any type of gold standard, gold is essentially money, and over the long run, gold’s real value is a function of its supply relative to all other goods, services, and assets (gold’s flexibility, durability, and steady long term accumulation rate give it its monetary properties). As long as money is defined as a fixed weight of gold, the value of money will closely track the value of gold. Thus, under a gold standard, the financial rate of interest is determined in large part by developments in the gold industry relative to the rest of the economy (as an aside, Ricardian equivalence might have some merit in that type of system).

However, in a fiat currency system like the U.S. has had (officially) since 1973, money is just money, which the government sector creates at minimal cost (currently the money creation process is controlled by the Federal Reserve through its interactions with member banks and primary dealers). Thus, the financial rate on fiat money is more easily attuned to the economic rate, thereby helping to mitigate the cycles of inflation and deflation that occurred regularly under classical gold (that was Wicksell’s stated intent when he first outlined his monetary theory). Granted, it’s taken policymakers and markets several decades to learn how to run such a system effectively, and there’s still plenty of room for improvement, but that’s to be expected with any large scale innovation.

A key takeaway is that the federal government creates the money used in private sector transactions, satisfaction of tax and other liabilities to the public sector, and demand for goods and services by the public sector. Thus, saving or spending desires of the private sector can only be accomodated by the federal government (leaving aside export income), while under a gold standard, they could only be accomodated (with some qualifications) by the available supply of gold. In other words, despite the widespread belief that they are subject to the same constraints, the federal government’s budget is nothing like households’ or businesses’ budgets, and in fact, in some key respects it is the inverse (just as under a gold standard, the gold industry would need to “dis-save” gold in order to satisfy the desire for saving in other sectors of the economy).

Today, if households, businesses, and state and local governments want to run a surplus, then the federal government must by definition (again ignoring exports) run a deficit. That’s not an ideological statement, it’s a simple operational fact, which is why (we think) it opens up a lot of common ground for policy.

So what role do federal government deficits play in our economy?

Depending on how they come about, they can raise the expected rate of economic return (by increasing aggregate demand), lower the financial rate (by increasing the supply of money), or both (by financing its demand for real goods and services with new money).

Conversely, a budget surplus (or a smaller deficit) can lower expected economic returns, and can also impact the financial rate (under our Wicksellian framework, if money becomes more scarce, then the prevailing nominal interest rate becomes tighter, all else equal).

In certain environments (e.g., Japan 1990’s thru 2000’s, U.S. 2000’s thru 2020), expanded deficits make sense, while in others (e.g., Japan 1970’s thru 1980’s, U.S. 1980’s thru 1990’s), smaller deficits or even surpluses might make sense – albeit with this caveat from Wray:

…the United States has also experienced six periods of depression that began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893, and 1929. Comparing these dates with the periods of budget surpluses, one finds that every significant reduction of the outstanding debt, with the exception of the Clinton surpluses, has been followed by a depression, and that every depression has been preceded by significant debt reduction. The Clinton surpluses were followed by the Bush recession that was ended by a speculative, private debt–fueled euphoria, and was followed in turn by our current economic collapse. The jury is still out on whether we might yet suffer another Great Depression. While we cannot rule out coincidences, seven periods of surplus followed by six and a half depressions (with some possibility for making it a perfect seven) should raise eyebrows…our less serious downturns in the postwar period have almost always been preceded by reductions of federal budget deficits. [Note that all six depressions occurred under a gold standard of some kind, so the direction of causation is open to question.]

Where are we today? U.S. demographic composition (pdf) implies a relatively pessimistic outlook for productivity, saving, and investment, possibly until the end of this decade. Large swaths of the private sector — notably households, but also some state and local governments – are in desperate need of repairing their balance sheets. Many corporations are flush with cash but apparently reluctant to invest it in human or physical capital. In other words, the demand for saving in the private sector remains high, and probably will for some time. 

What’s the proper response?

For households, some combination of fiscal support (e.g., extended payroll tax holiday, financed by money creation if need be) and financial relief (e.g., cleaning up the mortgage mess in as fair and transparent a way as possible, possibly with greater commitment from the federal government, as opposed to the private sector incentives and public-private partnerships experimented with to date) should help.

For state and local governments, direct budget assistance, again financed with new dollars if necessary (which is essentially how it’s now done, except that primary dealer and other banks get to hold Treasury paper for “financing” the federal deficit and earn the spread over the fed funds rate).

For the corporate sector, expanded public sector demand (e.g., maintenance and productivity enhancing infrastructure improvements, R&D into promising areas like energy and health care, etc) and perhaps most importantly, tax and regulatory assurances that will decrease the level of political uncertainty that businesses now face.

All of these would mean higher deficits in the short run, but if we’re right about the underlying state of the economy for the next decade, they will mean lower future debt and deficits than would otherwise occur (unless liquidationists and entitlement cutters were to win in drastic fashion, but in that improbable case the net costs would be much greater than any savings implied by a smaller federal debt).

It’s also important to point out to the Tea Party types that, as Jamie Galbraith and many other economists have noted, only a small percentage of the rise in federal deficit and debt to GDP ratios was driven by increased discretionary outlays by the Democrats. Almost all of the rise is simply a function of counter cyclical measures like unemployment insurance in the numerator and lower GDP in the denominator.

However it turns out, the federal government is not “broke” and never can be. The only true constraint on federal deficits is inflation, and there simply aren’t any signs of elevated inflation risk  today — although USD exchange rate depreciation is a meaningful risk, depending upon the relative movements of fiscal, trade, and monetary policies in different countries and regions. As Wray observes (emphasis added):

…there is no financial constraint on the ability of a sovereign nation to deficit spend. This doesn’t mean that there are no real resource constraints on government spending, but these constraints, not financial constraints, should be the real concern. If government spending pushes the economy beyond full capacity, then there is inflation. Inflation can also result before full employment if there are bottlenecks or if firms have monopoly pricing power. Government spending can also increase current account deficits, especially if the marginal propensity to import is high. This could affect exchange rates, which could generate pass-through inflation. [Viewed in this light, the Obama administration's export initiative might be a wise idea.]

The alternative would be to use fiscal austerity and try to keep the economy sufficiently depressed in order to eliminate the pressure on prices or exchange rates. While we believe that this would be a mistake—the economic losses due to operating below full employment are almost certainly much higher than the losses due to inflation or currency depreciation—it is an entirely separate matter from financial constraints or insolvency, which are problems sovereign governments do not face.

We openly admit that:

• While some of the measures we’ve outlined could be easily implemented, others are much easier said than done.
• All of them are subject to severe agency and other risks. But that’s true for most things in life, not just politics!
• Many of the distortions and perverse incentives that got us here still need to be corrected.
• Many voters may fear — perhaps justifiably, judging by some of the rhetoric on the left — that deficits do indeed imply higher future taxes and should thus be avoided.

We also admit that under certain conditions, fiscal austerity (via higher taxes and/or lower spending) may indeed be supportive of growth. But we do not think those conditions are in play today in most developed nations.

The bottom line is that no meaningful, bipartisan measures capable of supporting of economic growth at a reasonably healthy level can be crafted until we’ve moved beyond irrational deficit hysteria. And that requires a broader and deeper understanding of how modern money and financial economies work.

URLs:

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/204603/the-krugman-question

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/07/02/free-market-showdown-david-frum-poses-the-question-heres-the-answer-14105/

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/204665/keynes-amp-co-have-lost-the-stimulus-argument

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/ppb_111.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence

http://symmetrycapital.net/index.php/blog/2006/12/committees-vs-markets/

http://symmetrycapital.net/index.php/blog/2010/07/galbraith-blasts-the-deficit-commission/

A picture of the ‘Great Moderation’

A plot of the yearly change in the ratio between the 45-54 year old and 20-29 year old cohorts in the U.S.:

“Money we don’t have”

Good NYT article on deficit hysteria, with an especially illustrative quote from Rep. Cooper (D, TN):

“We have to stop spending money we don’t have,” said Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who voted against the bill. “I hope deficit reduction fever is catching.”

The U.S. is in the midst of a balance sheet recession, with demographic ratios shifting an an unfavorable economic direction for several more years.  Under those conditions, deficit reduction fever will lead directly to the dreaded Japanese Disease —  another decade of stagnation, underemployment, and opportunity costs, all of which will impose greater burdens on future generations than expanded federal deficits would.

And policymakers — not to mention most members of the electorate, including analysts and the media — continue to commit two fundamental errors regarding fiscal policy:

1. They believe that all deficit spending must be financed with interest bearing debt, thus competing with the private sector for scarce financial resources.  However, judging by current Treasury rates, there’s still plenty of room for expanded federal borrowing.  And there’s a symbiosis between federal deficits and repair of balance sheets in the financial sector, as evidenced by the perfect quarters turned in by several major investment banks recently.  Politically, that relationship is almost nauseating, as it’s doing very little to relieve distressed households — but it nevertheless makes apparent the  dynamic between public sector fiscal deficits and private sector balance sheet relief.
2. They also believe implicitly that the U.S. is on a gold or similar standard, where fiscal and monetary policies are constrained by the supply of some exogenous factor, and governments can thus literally “run out of money.”  Governments can’t run out of money, as it is ’created’ by nothing more than digital ledger entries.  In other words, government (today, via operations of the quasi-private Fed) is the sole creator and supplier of high powered money.  Thus, the only constraint on money creation is inflation and a loss of confidence in the currency, and at the moment, those forces are emphatically not in play.  This too is symptomatic of Japanese Disease.

The fears of incumbent politicians like Cooper are certainly understandable.  But they’re borne of either ignorance about how these things work, or self-preservation.  Either way, it smacks of lousy political leadership. 

And given that Republicans are likely to benefit in November, we’d expect the trend towards fiscal conservatism to intensify.  Even President Obama, in a speech yesterday, promised the following:

• A three year freeze on all non-discretionary federal spending beginning in 2011
• Expiration of tax cuts via sunset provisions
• Elimination of 120 federal programs
• Reinstatement of PAYGO
• Higher fees on banks that are expected to lower federal deficits by $90B over ten years

He promised all of this as a way to force the public sector to budget in the same way that families and businesses do.  Again, this is wrong, and is borne of either ignorance or pandering.  And as with Congress, it smacks of crummy political leadership either way. 

The administration’s jawboning is also reminiscent of budget austerity measures touted by the Carter administration in the 1970s in reaction to the “tax revolt” — austerity measures that contributed to its eventual demise, even though they may have been more appropriate to the conditions prevailing at the time (e.g., baby boomers entering adulthood, global trade and financial integration, etc).   Today, austerity is far less appropriate, but even more vigorously pursued.  That almost certainly spells trouble for Obama in 2012 – assuming the GOP can field a worthy candidate and avoid blowing all of its political capital in the intervening years. 

You also have to wonder, were he to experience a change of heart, whether there’s any credible way for him to backtrack from his neo-liberal rhetoric.  The DLC, Brookings, Peterson, and all the other usual suspects have painted the guy into one hell of a corner.

In the meantime, assuming that reality will align with rhetoric, the political climate continues to be favorable to the USD and Treasuries, and rather risky to gold.  A contrarian call? You bet.  But it’s based on what we think is a well-grounded and – just as importantly – non-ideological assessment of the facts. 

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC (“SCM”) is a state registered investment adviser in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The views expressed by the author are as of the publication date, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy or a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Investors should not use this information as a basis for any investment decisions without first consulting their own financial adviser. SCM is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. Some clients of the firm are long GLL and/or long TLT.  At the time of writing, neither the firm nor its principals owned any securities mentioned. PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE RESULTS.

URLs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/29/us/politics/29deficit.html

http://www.japanreview.net/review_bsr.htm

http://www.miraeasset.com/ourmarket/outlookView.do?board_id=1125&group_id=1&pageNo=2

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100602/FREE/100609973

http://seekingalpha.com/article/208174-how-deficit-hawks-will-keep-cutting-spending-until-we-re-all-on-food-stamps

Astounding assertion from Hassett

Kevin Hassett must have been asleep for the past two decades.

First, in a column yesterday on sovereign debt, he argued (correctly we think) that the current rescue package for Greece is doomed:

The fatal flaw in the plan is that the European nations bailing out Greece — even Germany, where government debt has risen to about 80 percent of gross domestic product — have similar budget problems and even less political will to take similar medicine. Their plan appears to rest on the hope that lenders won’t notice. Eventually they will, and when that happens, a worldwide loss of faith in government debt markets is a virtual certainty.

But he starts heading for the deep end (emphasis added):

In other words, it is hardly good news for a creditor if a hopelessly bankrupt borrower offers to take on the debts of a hopelessly bankrupt borrower.

During the financial crisis, faith was restored in large financial institutions because toxic assets were essentially exchanged for government bonds. If government bonds become toxic, there will be no effective treatment options remaining. The collapse will have no bottom.

There are three problems here.

First, to call European governments “hopelessly bankrupt” is to simply recognize that the EMU was designed in such a way as to prevent the ECB from monetizing the debts of member nations. Some relatively simple changes to the EMU framework would prevent EMU member governments (or a supranational fiscal body) from ever becoming ”hopelessly bankrupt.” Such changes might not be high probability, but they are clearly on the minds of European leaders and policymakers.

Second, to say that there are “no effective options remaining” if all of Europe were to face default is bizarre. In a sovereign debt deflation spiral, some level of monetization, either via direct open market purchases of government debt, or unsterilized fiscal expansion, or both, is the patently obvious answer. And his convenient use of ”essentially” in describing the prior chapter in the global financial crisis allows him to leave out a critical step – money creation. And no, Cassandra, in a debt deflation spiral, monetization and fiscal expansion are unlikely to prove inflationary.

Third, to claim that a “collapse will have no bottom” is rhetorical fear mongering, devoid of any conception of natural cycles, including human ones. Every collapse has an end, by definition. In the worst case, the world’s monetary and financial systems collapse, and we end up bartering with our neighbors, friends, and families; in other words, a two century step backwards. Not pretty, but not exactly “bottomless” either. And to believe that the world’s institutions would stand by and let such a thing happen is ridiculously far fetched, better suited to a backyard-bunker novel than a business column.

He then goes off the deep end completely (emphasis added, black only):

While the U.S. has been above the fray so far, an International Monetary Fund working paper published in 2003 suggests it is hardly in safe territory…

The paper, written by economists Paolo Manasse of the University of Bologna along with Nouriel Roubini of New York University and the IMF’s Axel Schimmelpfennig, studied historical sovereign-debt crises, exactly the situations that Western nations are hoping to avoid. They found that external debt levels — money owed to foreigners — exceeding 50 percent was a key indicator that debt default may occur.

Here is the chilling fact: the average external debt as a percent of GDP among countries in their sample the year before a sovereign debt crisis was 54.7 percent, and 71.4 percent in the crisis year. The U.S. external debt on Dec. 31, 2009, was $13.77 trillion, or almost 100 percent of GDP. For much of Europe, the story is worse.

A key force driving external debt higher has been the increase in government borrowing. In its first year, the Obama administration managed to add more than $8 trillion to the expected 2019 debt, now projected to reach $17.5 trillion.

Even the optimistic scenario only delays the inevitable. Along this path, lenders continue to happily purchase government debt in the near term. But even then, the relatively healthy U.S. will look like Greece within a decade.

Our advice? Read the paper before letting Kevin get too far under your skin. The Manasse-Roubini study’s sample was composed of 54 “market access countries”, which means emerging economies with significant access to international capital markets.  Examples include Algeria, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, Uruguay, and Venezuela. It was not a study of mature economies with deep and fully developed capital markets and an internationally recognized currency, e.g., the U.S., the U.K., Japan, and western Europe. Chilling??? Come on, Kev…

For Hassett to extend the study’s findings to the U.S. and other developed economies without serious qualification betrays a certain degree of historical ignorance (including Japan, whose recent history he must have slept through), or financial ignorance, which seems unlikely given his credentials, or just good old intellectual dishonesty in the service of political ends. Whichever one is at work, it reflects poorly on him.

He continues:

The only path forward is one in which the major developed nations collectively make long-run budget adjustments designed to soothe market fears before a crisis ensues. Given that the only nation serious about deficit reduction right now is Greece, it seems almost impossible for this story to reach a happy end.

Which markets is he watching, exactly? Credit spreads have been coming under increasing strain as countries have been rolling out their austerity plans. And if being “serious about deficit reduction” is a magic pill, why is Greece’s sovereign debt still the most loathed in the EMU? 

And which nations is he listening to? Spain, Portugal, and Ireland are clearly serious about deficit reduction, and Italy is signalling that it might be; and yet their credit obligations are also relatively unloved by the market. Hassett is clearly missing some part of this dynamic.

And recent flights to safety notwithstanding, the USD and Treasuries have been strengthening as deficit reduction moves towards center stage in U.S. politics. This is eerily similar to how Japanese Government Bonds and the Yen behaved from 1989 — incessantly grinding higher despite repeated warnings like the one Hassett is now making to ”the major developed nations.”

What’s happening in Europe, and to the debt of Greece and the other ‘PIIG’ nations in particular, is being driven by the combination of an undeveloped fiscal structure for the EMU and strict constraints on the ECB’s open market activities. Yes, Greece’s prior government screwed up royally (apparently with some help from our sacred financial sector) and needs to make adjustments and amends to its fellow EMU members. But certain aspects of the crisis are also related to national policies and the EMU’s institutional framework that are depressing total output in much of the EU — in other words, there are amends aplenty to go around. And most importantly, hairshirt economics are not likely to improve the situation.

Hassett concludes:

Our choice is panic now, or panic later.

Clearly, Hassett is choosing panic now. And the last people you want by your side in a crisis — much less making decisions — are the panicky types.

URLs:

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-17/greece-s-bailout-heroes-arrive-in-leaky-boats-commentary-by-kevin-hassett.html

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/eu-faces-trichet-s-quantum-leap-call-as-euro-falls-update2-.html

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/europe/Greek-PM-Considers-Legal-Action-Against-US-Banks-93885419.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6907681.ece

A brief “What happened?!”

It was a tough day in major equity indices yesterday, with the S&P 500 down over 2%.

We don’t think it had much to do with the Senate’s lengthy grilling of Goldman Sachs executives. Rather, it was mostly about the continuing sovereign crisis in Europe, especially Greece and Portgual. We think it might also have been helped along by President Obama’s remarks on deficit reduction earlier in the day, though that’s a much more controversial assertion. 

On top of Germany’s continuing hard line on support for Greece, S & P substantially lowered its ratings yesterday on the sovereign debt of Greece and Portgugal. Such actions lower the price that buyers are willing to pay for their debt in the market place. The resulting price adjustments are often exacerbated by rules governing institutional portfolio holdings and bank capital, as multiple large sellers head for the exits simultaneously. Momentum driven speculators might play a role as well. 

In turn, lower bond prices mean higher bond yields. For example, if a bond with a $100 face value pays an annual coupon of $5, its stated yield is 5%. But if the best price the bond can fetch is $50, then the yield rises to 10%, or $5 divided by $50. The yield to maturity on such a bond is even higher, since the holder eventually receives the $100 face value at maturity. 

This is trouble for Greece because a large slug of its sovereign debt matures this year, meaning that it will have to pay an exorbitantly high price (in terms of interest rates) on its new debt. If those rates are high enough that default or insolvency become inescapable, then current bond holders may not be able to recover the full face value of the bonds they own. There’s been a good deal of talk about debt restructuring, which is basically a process aimed at helping a debtor avoid a worst case outcome while containing the total damage done to creditors.

Importantly, the price adjustments did not just hit Greek and Portuguese debt, but also that of Ireland, Italy, and Spain. It’s more than a little ironic that dithering by the same governments that want banks and nations to shore up their balance sheets is having the exact opposite effect. And if that dithering continues long enough for full blown contagion effects to take hold, then the threat of the euro payments system locking up will become too large to ignore. That’s the very thing that the USD payments system faced in the wake of Lehman’s collapse and AIG’s near collapse in 2008, and which U.S. policymakers took such drastic measures to avert. Could Greece prove to be the eurozone’s Lehman, or at least its Bear Stearns? [Update 4/28/10 - We just noticed that Marshall Auerback asked a similar question on April 12th]

Ironically, Germany’s Angela Merkel has claimed that the primary motive for her country’s intransigence is to preserve the eurozone. And yet the current EMU is essentially what they’ve anted up in the high stakes game they are playing with Greece and other eurozone governments.

While we’re not huge fans of the credit rating agencies, especially given their track records during the mortgage crisis and during the twenty year bull market in Japanese government bonds, yesterday’s announcement might actually have some value when all is said and done, as long as the markets’ severe reactions act as a wake up call to European leaders. The news flow today seems to support that thesis, though only time will tell.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s remarks reminded us that the threat of premature fiscal tightening in the U.S. is still in play. We think that his call to cast a critical eye upon all federal expenditures and carefully address longer term structural deficits is absolutely appropriate (just as we think it’s fair for the German electorate to raise similar questions about Greece). However, we’re concerned that he might be a victim of the same budget surplus fetishism that has gripped many Democrats since the 1990s.

For example, he repeated, as erroneously as ever, that the federal government’s budget is like that of any family. But in fact, the federal government’s budget is more properly thought of as a complement to family and private sector budgets in the U.S. For example, if the private sector desires to increase it savings, the public sector should run larger deficits, all else equal. And if the public sector does not fully accomodate this desire, one likely result is higher private sector leverage (debt). We’re careful to point out that this dynamic is complicated by global effects — but it should still sound familiar to anyone who was awake during the past decade or two.

Amazingly, the same budget fetishists who continue to decry ”crowding out” effects in borrowing ignore those same effects when it comes to saving. 

Until the President and policymakers demonstrate a better grasp of this, our call for long term USD strengthening remains on the table. And if stringent fiscal reforms are accompanied by a Fed tightening cycle, watch out. This isn’t likely to unfold until 2012-2013 (late 2011 at the earliest). However, it’s important to point out that underlying demographic cycles have the potential to make things all the worse, perhaps along the lines of a 1937 redux.  

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is a state registered investment advisor. The foregoing information is for informational, educational, or entertainment purposes only. It does not constitute an offer to buy nor a solicitation to sell any security, or to engage in any investment strategy. Symmetry Capital Management, LLC is an Amazon.com associate, and earns a commission on sales generated through links from our website. At the time of writing, some of the firm’s clients own shares of Alpha Bank (ALBKY), National Bank of Greece (NBG), and Currencyshares Euro Trust (FXE). One of the firm’s principals owns shares of Goldman Sachs (GS). The firm, its clients, and its principals do not hold any positions in Lehman Brothers, AIG, or the debt of any sovereign issuers mentioned.

URLs:

http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-27/greece-s-junk-contagion-pressures-eu-to-broaden-bailout-after-market-rout.html

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/04/12/the-piigs-problem-maginot-line-economics-9697/

http://seekingalpha.com/article/200708-greece-will-have-the-last-laugh

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/03/30/greece-and-the-eurozone-angie-aint-it-time-to-say-goodbye-9235/

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1478940638&play=1

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/10/04/27/Laying-the-Path-to-Fiscal-Responsibility/

Days of reckoning for state pensions?

Northwestern professor Joshua Rauh has published a paper in which he estimates that (1) state pension funds will run out of money in an average of 10 to 20 years and (2) the current gap between state pension assets and liabilities is equivalent to 25% of outstanding federal debt.

Rauh points out that actuarial practices understate the gap, and that with 8% annual return on pension assets [optimistic in our view], annual contributions to pension funds would have to double over the next ten years to close the gap. That’s a heck of a tax increase and/or shift in social spending at the state level. And given the contractual nature of defined retirement benefits, the fact that they are not indexed to nominal asset values in any way, and the importance they are afforded in most state constitutions, it seems unlikely that any ground can be made up on the benefits side of the equation.

States potentially have the option of scrip’ting away part of the problem by issuing their own currency (a more permanent version of California’s IOUs). The problem there is that many pension beneficiaries may live outside of the state they worked for, and that such measures might run afoul of pension guarantees.

Thus, it seems inevitable that the federal government will become more deeply involved in this issue in coming years. And while a great deal has been made of a ‘Keynesian revival’ in economic policy over the past few years, the pension crisis, like demographic cycles, actually seems to call for a revival of Abba Lerner’s ‘functional finance’, and the neo-chartalist school in general.

Essentially, if tax related or other burdens associated with pension fund solvency would impose deflation and/or penalties on real output, then the sanest way to resolve the crisis would be to employ the federal government’s capacity to issue interest and non-interest bearing debt (Treasury bills/notes/bonds and U.S. dollars, respectively), as we did with the financial system.

While straightforward in theory and operation, functional finance could prove a bit messier in its outcomes, given that U.S. dollars are still the global reserve currency. As we’ve pointed our previously, goods subject to the Law of One Price, primarily commodities, could very well ”inflate” in price, even if core U.S. price indices are relatively tame. That combination can have a regressive impact on households, and asymmetric impacts by industry.

If mishandled, it would mean that we’re shifting some of the adjustment costs in state pension assets to people outside and inside our borders who had nothing to do with the problem, while others would benefit unduly. Messy stuff.

URLs:

http://kelloggfinance.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/the-day-of-reckoning-for-state-pension-plans/

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/rauh/research/RauhASPSSUSC2010.pdf

http://www.sscommonsense.org/page04.html

http://www.cfeps.org/pubs/wp-pdf/WP10-Wray.pdf

http://www.ucm.es/info/ec/ecocri/cas/Febrero.pdf

Stiglitz: The Dangers of Deficit Reduction

A timely column from Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz (emphasis added):

A wave of fiscal austerity is rushing over Europe and America…But despite protests by the yesterday’s proponents of deregulation, who would like the government to remain passive, most economists believe that government spending has made a difference, helping to avert another Great Depression.

…even deficit hawks acknowledge that we should be focusing not on today’s deficit, but on the long-term national debt. Spending, especially on investments in education, technology, and infrastructure, can actually lead to lower long-term deficits. Banks’ short-sightedness helped create the crisis; we cannot let government short-sightedness – prodded by the financial sector – prolong it.

Faster growth and returns on public investment yield higher tax revenues, and a 5 to 6% return is more than enough to offset temporary increases in the national debt. A social cost-benefit analysis (taking into account impacts other than on the budget) makes such expenditures, even when debt-financed, even more attractive.

In those last two paragraphs, Stiglitz is pointing out that if the returns on public spending are greater than the cost of financing them, then the future debt level will actually be lower. The government’s current cost of financing is simply the yield on Treasury debt. As of Friday, the ten year Treasury note yields 3.7%, while thirty year Treasury bonds yield about 4.6%. If publicly financed investments can be expected to return more than those figures, then undertaking them — and adding to current deficits and debt levels — is a no-brainer.

And as long as the yields on the securities of private sector issuers aren’t abnormally higher than those on Treasuries, the argument that the federal government is going to ‘crowd out’ the private sector is without merit.

Of course, it’s debatable (1) whether public expenditures are likely to produce returns of that magnitude and (2) whether future Congresses, Administrations, and Treasury Departments will manage the federal balance sheet appropriately. Unfortunately, no one’s openly debating these points. Instead, we’re treated to pithy but nonstop dogma from both sides, and a peculiar obfuscation by those in the middle, which in all cases overlook the basic financial calculus that Stiglitz reminds us of in his column.

Most importantly for debt and deficit hawks and those who fear higher taxes (those whom econo-nerds would refer to as ‘Ricardian equivalence’ subscribers), when the financial calculus is positive, then the debt service associated with marginal federal spending can be financed organically, via higher growth, rather than through higher taxes.

In short, people on all sides of the deficit issue should be able to agree, at least on financial and economic grounds, that investments yielding more than their cost of financing, when they do not crowd out private sector borrowing or resource demand, should absolutely be carried out.

—

Unfortunately, Stiglitz overlooks his own argument when he writes the following, which make us wonder if he doubts his 5 to 6% return figures, or if he’s just offering a gratuitous slap at the financial sector (emphasis added):

As the global economy returns to growth, governments should, of course, have plans on the drawing board to raise taxes and cut expenditures…

Continuing with his love of taxes:

The financial sector has imposed huge externalities on the rest of society. America’s financial industry polluted the world with toxic mortgages, and, in line with the well established “polluter pays” principle, taxes should be imposed on it. Besides, well-designed taxes on the financial sector might help alleviate problems caused by excessive leverage and banks that are too big to fail. Taxes on speculative activity might encourage banks to focus greater attention on performing their key societal role of providing credit.

As we’ve pointed out elsewhere, the domestic financial sector is going to shrink even without  punitive measures, as demographic composition shifts away from the saving and investing age groups. Well-designed regulation might be a better approach than taxes to constraining financial sector activities to socially beneficial ones (we admit that a ‘Tobin tax’ can be the most efficient approach to regulation under certain conditions, but aren’t convinced that it’s optimal for the financial sector).

And it would be profoundly unjust for the federal government, which so strongly encouraged and underwrote the expansion of mortgage financing (Stiglitz’ “pollution”), to retroactively punish the financial sector, its employees, and its current and future clients for simply following the government’s orders.

Stiglitz also takes a step back from his underlying thesis with this sentence:

Over the longer term, most economists agree that governments, especially in advanced industrial countries with aging populations, should be concerned about the sustainability of their policies.

From a technical standpoint, this isn’t as iron clad as so many of us reflexively believe. First, we have no idea whether an aging population is bound to be a drag on an economy, whether it depends on particular conditions, or anything else. There simply isn’t much historical data available to test such a proposition. Second, if we assume that it is a significant drag, then policies that are seen as unsustainable under “normal” conditions might very well be the most sustainable under those novel conditions. This could include expanded deficit spending and public debt, and/or expansion of money supply.

[To be fair, Stiglitz is almost certainly referring to entitlement spending obligations in that passage, which might be a bird of a different feather. We're just using it as an opportunity to critique some of the conventional wisdom around demographics.]

—

Despite Sitglitz’ inability to break out of his New Keynesian box, or part ways with his passion for higher taxes, we agree wholeheartedly with his essential argument:

…even with large deficits, economic growth in the US and Europe is anemic, and forecasts of private-sector growth suggest that in the absence of continued government support, there is risk of continued stagnation – of growth too weak to return unemployment to normal levels anytime soon.

The risks are asymmetric: if these forecasts are wrong, and there is a more robust recovery, then, of course, expenditures can be cut back and/or taxes increased. But if these forecasts are right, then a premature “exit” from deficit spending risks pushing the economy back into recession. This is one of the lessons we should have learned from America’s experience in the Great Depression; it is also one of the lessons to emerge from Japan’s experience in the late 1990’s.

…we must be wary of deficit fetishism…high-return public investments that more than pay for themselves can actually improve the well-being of future generations, and it would be doubly foolish to burden them with debts from unproductive spending and then cut back on productive investments.

These are questions for a later day – at least in many countries, prospects of a robust recovery are, at best, a year or two away. For now, the economics is clear: reducing government spending is a risk not worth taking. 

URLs:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz123/English

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/domestic-finance/debt-management/interest-rate/yield.shtml

Masters of the Universe: They’re baaaack…

A new BIS paper has some very telling data points. First, they demonstrate the extent to which leveraged financial speculation drove foreign currency movements in the financial crisis (it’s quite reasonable to assume that this factor was at work in other asset class dislocations too). Second, it provides evidence that highly leveraged masters of the universe were back to their old tricks in fairly short order.

Let’s start with a  quick primer on “carry trades.”  A carry trade occurs when a financial market participant borrows in some currency with a low nominal interest rate (the “funding currency”) and invests the loan proceeds in some asset(s) (a “target asset”) that’s expected to appreciate at a rate that exceeds the interest rate due on the borrowed currency. The target asset can be a higher yielding currency, a credit instrument, equities or a stock market proxy, commodities or a commodity index proxy, and so on.

The Yen carry trade — borrowing low yielding Japanese Yen and using them to acquire riskier assets – has been increasingly employed by speculators since the 1990s, and appears to have played a key role in the speculative period of 2004-2008.

Speculators engaging in this activity are taking risks (sometimes massive risks) with (for the most part) Other People’s Money (OPM). When it works, they return the borrowed funding currency plus interest, and pocket the difference. When it goes terribly wrong, you wind down operations and hide from your creditors behind a corporate liability shield, forcing them to write down the value of their loans to you (their funding currency assets).

Nice work if you can get it, and amazingly, investment banks and their subsidiaries have been falling all over themselves to make these loans to privileged clients — including their own proprietary desks and funds — since the late 1990s (in competitive strategy, herd pursuit of bad ideas is usually a sign of an over crowded industry).

Better yet for the carry traders, increasingly lax financial regulation has allowed speculators to lever their carry up to levels not seen before in modern history, meaning they can borrow more money for a given level of collateral, and/or purchase more assets with a given amount of funding currency.

As some of those trades started to go bad in 2008, the result was a breathtakingly sharp and sudden reversal in the key funding currency, the Yen. This can be seen in the circled graph below, along with the following observations:

• The rate of appreciation in the Yen was far greater in 2008 than in the 1997 and 1998 global financial crises. The left most graph shows foreign exchange movements between the Yen and thirty three other currencies during the Asian crisis of 1997. Clearly, forex movements in that crisis were country specific.
• The middle graph shows currency movements against the Yen during the 1998 crisis associated with the Russian sovereign debt default. The appearance of a positive slope is apparent, implying that forex dislocations were due more to speculative behaviors including the rising use of leverage than to country-specific risks (for that we can probably thank the pioneering geniuses at LTCM and their investment bank benefactors).
• The third graph shows the appreciation of the Yen during the recent global financial crisis. The slope, which gives an idea of how sharply the Yen appreciated against those 33 other currencies, is breathtaking. The median interest rate on the target currencies (on the horizontal axis) also appears to have been roughly half of what it was in 1998.

Translating into English, this means that in 2008-09, the Yen appreciated even more sharply than it did in 1998, and against target assets that offered half the expected return of those in 1998. This calls to mind a question we raised recently, which is whether some powerful financial market participants are confusing ”efficient dislocation” with “market efficiency.” That would be understandable after all. History shows that the fatter the economic rents being justified, the more deluded the economic rationales tend to be.

In the BIS paper, the author also notes that carry trade activities are inherently pro-cyclical: borrowing activity tends to push down the market value of the funding currency, while investing activity tends to push up the market value of the target assets, and this will tend to invite increasing levels of speculation until something causes a breakdown.

Higher degrees of leverage make the pro-cyclicality and the eventual fallout that much worse. Unfortunately, while a great deal has been made of John Maynard Keynes’ alleged return in the past year, it appears that the brief 2008-09 resurgence of Hyman Minsky — who warned presciently of such dangers – has already been forgotten.

That “Minsky fade” appears to be supported by the bottom right graph (though admittedly, this case isn’t as strong as the leveraged carry trade evidence discussed above). The negative slope in that graph shows that less than a year later, the Yen depreciated markedly against many currencies, especially against higher yielding target currencies, which runs counter to the aftermath of 1997 and 1998.

The implication is that the Yen carry trade came back on line fairly quickly after financial markets regained their footing. Apparently financial cockroaches are, like their arachnid namesakes, largely immune to the effects of fallout. As described by the BIS author:

…with extreme risk aversion abating, carry trade activity – a relatively risky strategy – may have returned in the second half of 2009. Indeed, carry trades in a number of high-yielding currencies, especially those of commodity exporters, provided extraordinarily high ex post returns over this period. Moreover, near zero interest rates prevailed in many major currencies, increasing ex ante profitability not only for traditional funding currencies such as the yen. Carry-to-risk ratios support this conclusion…

A a critically important aspect of this issue is financial regulatory reform. Very little has been done from a regulatory standpoint to bring down the astronomical leverage that was available for carry trade speculation prior to 2008. Yesterday, Larry Summers gave an interview to CNBC in which he emphasized that the scope of the proposed “Volcker Rule” was limited to particular types of banks.

If true, over leveraged areas of global financial markets are likely to continue escaping prudent regulation, which means that the pronounced cycles of euphoria and distress in risky asset classes will continue. While those swings create opportunities for contrarian investors, the dynamic behind them is a zero-sum or even net-negative economic game. In the long run, it causes more economic harm than it’s worth.

And while interest rates have converged substantially since the 1990s, current spreads are likely to persist in the decade ahead for multiple reasons, not least being variation in demographic cycles, which will mean lower nominal rates in most developed countries, and higher rates in most emerging markets.

In other words, the roach bait isn’t going anywhere soon. That means that sound regulation absolutely must fill the void in order for the gains from financial market speculation to approach something resembling a social optimum.

UPDATE 3/2/2010 – AP report on further progress in Senate Finance on financial regulation

URLs:

http://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1003f.pdf?noframes=1

http://symmetrycapital.net/index.php/blog/2010/02/wsj-hedge-fund-career-trades/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100302/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul