Geanakoplos on the Leverage Cycle

We came across this gem today — video of a presentation that [future Nobel Prize recipient] John Geanakoplos gave on leverage cycles at a Legg Mason conference, with accompanying slides.

URLs:

http://www.leggmason.com/thoughtleaderforum/2008/conference/webcasts/Geanakoplos-webcast.asp

http://www.leggmason.com/thoughtleaderforum/2008/conference/John_Geanakoplos_slides.pdf

http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/~gean/publications.htm

He likes it! Hey Nicky!

At the moment, Mr. Market looks pretty satisfied with the EMU’s surprisingly large rescue plan – European stock bourses are up over 5%, France’s CAC40 over 8%, while U.S. equity futures are up over 4%.  Vienna’s ATX and the Madrid General, with their home countries also heavily exposed to troubled sovereign debt (Spain doubly so), are up over 9% and 12% respectively:

Of course, following a week when indices were down 7 to 11%, these kinds of gains still leave markets roughly 3% shy of last week’s highs.

It’s not clear how much of this consists of short covering, and how much reflects renewed belief in fundamentals.  European officials still sound as if they are strongly committed to austerity — perhaps the sizeable rescue package reflects nothing more than a desire to spread the pain to bearish traders as well?

And globally, a handful of analysts have noted that many cyclical asset prices have optimistically decoupled from leading indicators such as Chinese property markets (see this rather cautious piece by former uber bull Ajay Kapur, for example: http://www.miraeasset.com/ourmarket/outlookView.do?board_id=1350&group_id=1&pageNo=1).

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, the firm, its principals, and its clients did not own any securities mentioned, or any securities issued by entities mentioned.

“An absolute general mobilization” in Euroland

Wow…the EU may, may, have finally put together a mammoth, TARP sized plan to prevent or at least mitigate a 2008-style meltdown on the continent. As described in an article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of The Telegraph (UK):

“It is an absolute general mobilization: we have decided to give the eurozone a veritable economic government,” said French president Nicolas Sarkozy, once again basking as Europe’s action man. “Today we have an attack on the whole of the eurozone. This is a systemic crisis: the response must be systemic. When the markets open on Monday morning we will be ready to defend the euro.”

Great caution is in order. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has so far said little. The descriptions of the deal agreed by EU leaders in the early hours of Saturday are coming from the French bloc and EU bureaucrats. How many times during the Greek saga of the last four months have we heard claims from Brussels that turned out to be a distortion of what Germany had actually agreed, causing each relief rally to falter within days? They had better get it right this time.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that the French bloc is pushing such a description, given their relative exposure to Greece and their immense exposure to Italy:

Image by Bill Marsh/The New York Times

Evans-Pritchard continues, noting what a seminal event this is for the EMU and the euro:

…if the early reports are near true, the accord profoundly alters the character of the European Union…The creation of an EU rescue mechanism with powers to issue bonds with Europe’s AAA rating to help eurozone states in trouble — apparently €60bn, with a separate facility that may be able to lever up to €600bn — is to go far beyond the Lisbon Treaty. This new agency is an EU Treasury in all but name, managing an EU fiscal union where liabilities become shared. A European state is being created before our eyes.No EMU country will be allowed to default, whatever the moral hazard. Mrs Merkel seems to have bowed to extreme pressure as contagion spread to Portugal, Ireland, and — the two clinchers — Spain and Italy. “We have a serious situation, not just in one country but in several,” she said.

The euro’s founding fathers have for now won their strategic bet that monetary union would one day force EU states to create the machinery needed to make it work, or put another way that Germany would go along rather than squander its half-century investment in Europe’s power-war [sic] order.

According to Evans-Pritchard, a key problem with the present accord, beyond German inflation phobia, is that its key components still include severe austerity measures:

The answer to this — if the objective is to save EMU — is for Germany to boost its growth and tolerate higher `relative’ inflation. This would allow the South to close the gap without tipping into a 1930s Fisherite death spiral. Yet Europe will have none of it. The weekend deal demands yet more belt-tightening from the South. Portugal is to shelve its public works projects. Spain has pledged further cuts. As for Germany, it is preparing fiscal tightening to comply with the new balanced budget amendment in its Grundgesetz.

In other words, while Germany may have surrendered significant ground on the matter of closer fiscal integration, it has apparently not given up on its demands for severe austerity measures in other EMU nations. Note that even Sarkozy’s quote closes with the somewhat cryptic statement that “on Monday morning we will be ready to defend the euro.” Does that mean that a stronger euro will be pursued by policymakers, or that stabilization measures will be taken that, in the long run, should ensure the euro’s continued existence? The former would only exacerbate the sense of crisis and panic, so it’s tempting to assume that Sarkozy and other European leaders are committed to the second. However, Evans-Pritchard closes with two disconcerting historical references that should give pause:

While each component makes sense in its own narrow terms, the EU policy as a whole is madness for a currency union. Stephen Lewis from Monument Securities says Europe’s leaders have forgotten the lesson of the “Gold Bloc” in the second phase of the Great Depression, when a reactionary and over-proud Continent ground itself into slump by clinging to deflationary totemism long after the circumstances had rendered this policy suicidal. We all know how it ended.

We should see a good deal of dislocation (relocation?) and continuing volatility in markets tomorrow, with credit markets being key ones to watch. If European leaders can manage to soften the austerity demands, quell their inflation paranoia, and execute on a meaningful stabilization program, then things should settle down in reasonably short order.  If they can’t, then keep your seat belts fastened.

Another critical issue is whether the backstop provided by a new facility is large enough relative to the debt levels at the center of the crisis. According to data in a recent Spiegel article, it might be, all told. In 2012, there’s E370B of debt maturing in the PIIGS nations, E328B in 2011, and 276B in 2012. And something that has been completely overlooked in this crisis is that, according to Ajay Kapur’s research, most of the PIIGS countries are on the cusp of favorable turns in demographic composition, at least as it relates to financial sector performance. That certainly adds an interesting wrinkle to the story.

TOH to Zero Hedge for links to the Telegraph and Spiegel articles.

UPDATE 5/9/2010 — The ECB has announced that its bond market operations will be sterilized, which means it intends to offset the creation of new euros resulting from its planned bond market purchases. The net effect is to undo any actual debt monetization. This indicates to us that current plans to ‘protect the euro’ are indeed likely to have a deflationary bias. It will be interesting to see how forex markets react — do they think it can be done (stronger euro), or will they bet on inevitable ECB easing (weaker euro)?  This does nothing to undermine Stephen Lewis’ warning above about “deflationary totemism”.  

URLs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/7702335/Europe-prepares-nuclear-response-to-save-monetary-union.html

http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/its-all-greek-to-me-understanding-the-debt-crisis-in-europe/

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

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-09/ecb-intervenes-in-bond-market-as-part-of-eu-debt-crisis-plan.html 

A brief “Now what?!?”

Equity markets and indices are down over 2% today on worries about what most pundits refer to as the “Greek bailout,” which took its (supposedly) final shape over the weekend, with details to follow from the IMF and other parties. The terms, as currently laid out, are brutal, a fact reflected by the intense street protests in Greece and the government’s loss of union support. The theories and practices underlying them are highly questionable and pitifully anachronistic as well, which make it all the more frustrating.   

There’s no doubt that Greece has made some mistakes, that the lack of accurate fiscal disclosures by its previous government was extremely unethical, and that labor market reforms may be in order. But there are humane ways to approach and work through the entire imbroglio. Unfortunately, neither the IMF nor major eurozone countries seem to be giving that much thought. And as Marshall Auerback has pointed out, Germany’s longstanding inflation paranoia has it behaving as if it’s 1921 all over again; when to us, reality appears to be much closer to the deflationary late 1920s and 1930s.   

We referred to the Greek plan as pitifully anachronistic because it embodies what we might call gold standard era thinking, when the supply of new money was a function of mining output and demand for gold ownership in the private sector. At the turn of the 20th century, economist Knut Wicksell pointed out the need for a “rational monetary system“, while highlighting intellectual obstacles to it:   

It is no exaggeration to say that even to-day many of the most distinguished economists lack any real, logically worked out theory of money, a circumstance which has not, of course, been particularly conducive to the success of modern discussions in this field.   

Wicksell’s sentiments are still relevant today, and (in our view) have been powerfully echoed and expanded upon by proponents of neo-chartalism, also known as Modern Monetary Theory. Bill Mitchell, an occasionally acerbic but ever prolific member of the MMT club, recently posted the following diagram on his website:   

The essential point of the diagram is to illuminate that, under a fiat currency system, the government (whether through its treasury or via a quasi-public central bank) is the sole provider of money. And one of the resulting takeaways of this fact is that under certain conditions, fiscal austerity in the public sector will impose significant costs on the private sector. In turn, that will tend to raise the value of money, all else equal, which is the essence of deflation. And as Wicksell pointed out over a hundred years ago, deflation, like inflation, comes at a cost (emphasis added):   

…when a rise or fall occurs in the money prices of all, or of most, commodities…[a]djustment can no longer proceed through changes in demand or through a movement of factors of production from one branch of production to another. Its progress is much slower, being accomplished under continual difficulties, and it is never complete; so that a residue, either temporary or permanent, of social maladjustment is always left over.   

By linking the inflation boogeyman to public sector debt levels, prevailing economic theory sometimes leads to poor policy prescriptions and outcomes, as we are now seeing in Greece. It also fails utterly to explain the experience of Japan over the last two decades, and it looks set to fail in both the Eurozone and the U.S. in the coming decade.  So far, our contrarian calls for a strengthening USD and a dovish view of long term U.S. Treasury yields has lent support to this thesis.   

As with our recent “What Happened?!?” piece, we also think it’s important to tie the Greek “rescue” package to the current U.S. policy outlook. Today, speaking to the Business Council, President Obama once again invoked our “unsustainable fiscal deficit” and argued for immediate reimplementation of PAYGO. Looked at in terms of Mitchell’s diagram above, that implies that at best, the federal government is unlikely to add to the supply of vertical money.  It’s also important to realize that a concept like PAYGO essentially restricts the vertical money supply function to the central bank. And yet, according to recent testimony from Fed Chairman Bernanke, the Fed is targeting roughly a 50% contraction in its balance sheet, which also implies a contraction in narrow or vertical money supply (though rising velocity could give the Fed some room to work with).  Similarly, it was over tightening in both the fiscal and monetary spheres that led to the 1937 recession after several years of economic recovery.

The upshot of all this is that leaders in the public sectors of both the U.S. and the Eurozone are clearly signalling their intentions to “crowd out” private sector saving and, potentially, income. And unfortunately, electoratal majorities in key countries seem to support this direction. Normally, we expect electoral outcomes to approach optimal, but in this particular case, we suspect that the historic lack of economic and financial education might steer us wrong. Then again, voters with incomes might be making some rational inferences about deficits, austerity, and taxes. If so, the burden of adjustment could rest even more heavily on the on the un- and under- employed (believe it or not, that’s something that a handful of policy pundits have advocated, and that at least one senator briefly pursued).   

Either way, deflation will be the inescapable result of excessive restriction or contraction in vertical money.  We’re currently getting slight whiffs of it from credit markets and price indices (although the latter are still positive); cooling measures in China are also likely to help it along. As noted in our “What Happened?!?” piece, we don’t expect it to manifest in an economic downturn until 2012 or 2013, but it could show up in market prices before that. We’ll be watching commodity markets closely, as a broad decline in those prices would provide an especially powerful confirming signal.  Stay tuned…   

URLs:   

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_depression.svg   

http://mises.org/books/interestprices.pdf   

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=7864  

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/wcksInt1.html   

http://symmetrycapital.net/index.php/blog/2010/04/a-brief-what-happened/ 

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.

Banking regulation: Volcker vs. Basel

There’s additional chatter about financial regulatory reform today due to a luncheon speech that Paul Volcker’s giving on the subject. The debate continues to center around whether more stringent restrictions under the so-called Volcker Rule make sense, or whether capital requirements are a better way to go. The latter approach has some eloquent defenders, and seems to be favored by Asian and European regulators, but they should take heed of this new IMF study:

Using data for over 3,000 banks in 86 countries, we find that neither the overall index of BCP [Basel Core Principles on capital requirements] compliance nor its individual components are robustly associated with bank risk measured by Z-scores. We also fail to find a relationship between BCP compliance and systemic risk measured by a system-wide Z score.

And the band plays on…with each passing day it becomes more doubtful that something constructive will be done before the next financial crisis unfolds.

URLs:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2010/wp1081.pdf

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.

Poor auctions signifying…what exactly?

A good deal is being made of subpar Treasury auctions this past week and whether they signify a turning point in the market’s appetite for U.S. government debt. It’s certainly possible, but we suspect that there’s a more nuanced and global explanation.

First off, a 10 year Treasury yielding almost 4% annually does not look like a bad deal given the intermediate growth outlook in the U.S., despite what so many other pundits are saying (unless you believe that we’re on the verge of persistent domestic inflation, i.e., a widespread USD surplus…anyone?).

Second, if Treasury auction participants came to market with only cash and held no other assets, then the prevailing theory would be harder to refute. However, the most important participants in treasury auctions are the New York Fed’s primary dealer banks, which are divisions of BNP, Bank of America, Barclays, Cantor, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Daiwa, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Jefferies, JP Morgan, Mizuho, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, RBC, RBS, and UBS. These bank divisions and their parents already own large amounts of financial assets. Thus, they also need to manage risk when making purchase commitments. And one of the biggest risks of the past week was whether the Eurozone could agree on an assistance plan for Greece.

The following members of the Fed’s primary dealer banks are also primary dealers for Greek debt: Barclay’s, BNP, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JP Morgan, Merill Lynch (assumedly this is Bank of America), Morgan Stanley, Nomura, RBS, and UBS. This provides just a glimpse of the overall mosaic, as dealers also act as agents or conduits for public, and not just principals. However, it’s an important one, and it’s reported (and reasonable to assume) that several of them do own large slugs of Greek government debt.

Thus, given the uncertainty surrounding management of Greece’s funding crisis, and how it spiked again this past week as Germany dug in its heels, it’s quite possible that some of the usual buyers of U.S. Treasury debt are simply distracted and/or increasingly risk averse (even using low central bank interest rates to finance the purchase of protective credit default swaps, which probably offered more comfort in the immediate environment than new Treasuries).

 Consider, for example, that French and German banks are believed to be exposed to $119B of Greek debt. Assuming sane leverage ratios of 10x (a dangerous assumption to make), the potential financial loss is equivalent to a significant percentage of the two countries’ annual GDP of $6T (e.g., a 15% decline in the value of Greek bond holdings, if unhedged, would equal roughly 3% of combined French and German GDP).

As tempting as the U.S.-Treasury-on-the-brink hypothesis is for the public debt Cassandras, we think ours does a better job of incorporating the sharp strengthening of the USD over the past week, and market behavior since yet another agreement began to take shape.

Combined with the fact that speculative credit markets are looking awfully frothy, some other strange market signs, and the likelihood of federal fiscal consolidation in 2011, we think you have a recipe for an eventual rally in Treasuries. It reminds us a little bit of the post 9/11 Treasury market selloff. Caveat venditor?

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES: The author does not own shares of any companies mentioned. Clients of the firm own shares of ALBKY, SHY, TLT, MFG, and NBG. A principal of the firm owns shares of C, GS, and MS. 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.

URLs:

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/pridealers_current.html

http://www.bankofgreece.gr/Pages/en/Markets/HDAT/DispItem.aspx?Item_ID=3220&List_ID=1af869f3-57fb-4de6-b9ae-bdfd83c66c95

http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-will-have-to-become-greeces-abu-dhabi-since-way-too-many-foreigners-hold-greek-debt-2010-1

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/banks-bet-greece-defaults-on-debt-they-helped-hide/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703798904575069712153415820.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/cbuilder?ticker1=DXY%3AIND

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-27/bunds-fall-greek-bonds-rise-after-eu-leaders-agree-aid-plan.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJZgGddV4mIY

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/03/24/185091/new-negative-territory/

Bernanke: “It wasn’t us.” BIS: “Yes it was.”

A couple more interesting pieces in the to-and-fro on whether the Fed and other central banks played a role in fostering asset bubbles in the early 2000s:

First, the Economist takes apart former and current Fed chairment Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke’s recent defenses of monetary policy:

…both [Greenspan and Bernanke] say there is no evidence that low short-term rates drove house prices upward. Mr Greenspan argues that the statistical relationship between house prices and long-term rates is much stronger than with the Fed’s policy rates, and that during the early 2000s the traditionally high correlation between policy rates and long-term rates fell apart. Mr Bernanke points to structural models which show that only a modest part of the house-price boom can be pinned on monetary policy.

…There is something odd about central bankers denying any responsibility at all for long-term rates, which are, in principle, based partly on an assessment of a stream of short-term rates. Nor is it clear that low short-term rates were as irrelevant as Messrs Bernanke and Greenspan suggest. Jeremy Stein of Harvard University, a discussant of Mr Greenspan’s Brookings paper, points out that low policy rates may have mattered a great deal for income-constrained borrowers. He points out that adjustable-rate mortgages were used much more in expensive cities, a trend that became more pronounced as the fund rates fell.

By looking only at the effect of monetary policy on house prices, Messrs Bernanke and Greenspan also take too narrow a view of the potential effect of low policy rates. Several economists have argued convincingly, for instance, that low policy rates fuelled broader leverage growth in securitised markets.

Second, the Bank of International Settlements has published a paper arguing emphatically that monetary policy in the form of low interest rates can and does contribute to speculative risk taking by banks:

Using a unique database that includes quarterly balance sheet information for listed banks operating in the European Union and the United States in the last decade, we find evidence that unusually low interest rates over an extended period of time contributed to an increase in banks’ risk. This result holds for a wide range of measures of risk, as well as macroeconomic and institutional controls…

It is a very bad thing when the leader and former leader of an institution as critical as the Fed decide to cover their asses instead of engaging in critical assessment and truth telling. Personally, I don’t find it surprising with Mr. Greenspan, as I’ve never held a high opinion of the man (in my limited view, his primary professional achievement seems to have been the elevation of personality cult management to new levels). We’re more disappointed in Mr. Bernanke – still think he’s the right man for the job though. 

URLs:

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/economics-focus/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15719180

http://www.bis.org/publ/work298.pdf?noframes=1

Hamilton: Credit crisis causes vs symptoms

Short but interesting post from James Hamilton at Econbrowser on a recent conference re credit market dislocation. His main point is that many (if not most) economists are focusing on the Lehman collapse and its aftermath as problem, rather than symptom of a historic run up in credit. It’s accompanied by some straightforward eye candy.

There’s also a link in the comments section to this New Yorker profile of Ben Bernanke – like Hank Paulson’s recent tell (not quite) all, it’s an interesting story.

URLs:

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2010/03/modeling_proble.html

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/01/081201fa_fact_cassidy?currentPage=all

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

Greece and Goldman

There’s been a good deal of news swirl about Goldman Sachs’ role in entering into swaps contracts with Greece in order to assist it in “hiding” some of its public debt as it prepared to enter the EMU.

Here’s a good primer from 2003 on these types of swaps, and an interesting thought piece on it from Ed Harrison.

URLs:

http://www.risk.net/risk-magazine/feature/1498135/revealed-goldman-sachs-mega-deal-greece

http://seekingalpha.com/article/190390-inside-the-mind-of-an-investment-banker-greece-goldman-and-derivatives