In our paper on Bretton Woods II (pdf), Alex and I provide rather a gloomy assessment of financial crisis – which we suggest is going to last longer than many think…
Given that we now face what Gordon Brown has described as “the first truly global financial crisis of the modern world”, our bet would be that it takes as long as a decade to bring it fully under control.
Let’s unpack the assumptions behind our pessimism. We start from the premise that, six months back, experts were overly optimistic about how far-reaching the meltdown would be. This is based, in part, on April’s Progressive Governance summit, where heads of state were (a) clearly freaked out; (b) fairly sure they grasped the problem, if not the solutions; (c) not acting as if they expected any further big surprises.
Consider, too, what the IMF’s Dominique Strauss Kahn was saying at the time. He was as worried by inflation, as he was by economic slowdown. Although he was forecasting a “rather important, serious slowdown in economic growth” – the expected pain wasn’t really that bad:
Something around 0.5 percent as a rate of growth for the United States in 2008 and a slight recovery during 2009-an average of 0.6 percent for 2009, which is both linked to the financial turmoil, of course, but also the business cycle.
Next, we look at the lessons of earlier banking crises that, in developed countries, have tended to take four or five years to unravel, cost around 12% of GDP to resolve, and lead to a cumulative loss in output equal to almost a quarter of GDP. The figures are drawn from this useful chart prepared by PIMCO’s Michael Gomez:
Then add in what we know about the banking crisis that gripped Japan in the 1990s, which the IMF ascribes to “accelerated deregulation and deepening of capital markets without an appropriate adjustment in the regulatory framework”. Hiroshi Nakaso’s account is worth reading in full – seven years of crisis management and fire fighting as a senior manager at the Bank of Japan.
“When the bubble burst in the early 1990s, no one expected it was going to usher in such a prolonged period of weak growth in Japan,” he writes. Policy makers underestimated the seriousness of the problem, while banks lacked the ‘foresight and courage’ to confront their predicament head on.
At the time there was considerable schadenfreude in the West about Japan’s failure to get to grips with its crisis. It was eight years or so before its policy makers even found the levers that would begin to inch the crisis towards a solution. Are we right to assume that we’ll now do better? (more…)
– The summit is unlikely to be able to live up to its billing. Leaders do not yet understand the nature of the problem well enough to be able to implement viable solutions. However, the problem is more fundamental than a simple lack of shared awareness.
– History suggests that leaders will only think the unthinkable on institutional reform once the challenge they face has really hit rock bottom. But history also suggests that we are wrong to think that the worst of the crisis is now past, given that many past banking crises have taken five years or more to unravel.
– Bretton Woods 1 looked across the whole international economic waterfront in 1944, while this weekend’s summit will be much more narrowly focused. Leaders will make a big mistake if they try and tackle finance in isolation, given the growing impact of resource scarcity, and that 2009 is supposed to see another ambitious global deal – on climate.
– We need to recalibrate what we expect from globalization through a serious debate about subsidiarity. Where has globalization gone too far, too fast? Where do we need more integration at a global level? These were exactly the questions that preoccupied Keynes in 1933, when he weighed the relative benefits of global versus local across a range of variables. We need a similar debate today as a precursor to serious international economic reform.
– Leaders need to extend their horizons in (at least) five directions: onto longer time scales; beyond financial regulation into wider resource scarcity challenges; into other international processes, especially climate; towards grand bargains with emerging powers; and beyond government, to non-governmental networks.
Full version after the jump, or better yet here’s the pdf.
It’s disappointing that Crikey, like others in the liberal media, have fallen for the nonsensical line that the so-called “financial crisis” is either real or requires urgent action. Anyone who disputes this claim, which is advanced with evangelical fervour by its advocates, is howled down as a heretic and a “denialist”. The days of the witch-hunt are truly back.
Put simply, there is no evidence of a human-induced financial crisis, regardless of the hysterical claims advanced in trendy films like Al Gore’s Inconvenient Loot. The financial environment moves through cycles unrelated to human activity. Financial records from the distant past demonstrate that key indices have previously been much lower than they are today, and move up and down of their own accord. Man’s contribution to these movements is dwarfed by the natural rise and fall of markets.
The following graph shows that the long-term financial trend is — inconveniently for crisis fanatics — resolutely upwards:
And to anyone objecting that the market is now declining — what happened yesterday?
Another rise. So much for the purported, so-called, alleged myth of anthropogenic financial collapse, which is not real at all, but actually made up.
Any recent, temporary falls in the Dow Jones Index are nothing to do with human-induced crises. Quite apart from natural ups and downs, recent sun spot activity has increased the cash burn rate, contributing to a mild reduction in credit availability, but again it is a wholly natural cycle, unrelated to human activity. The current cycle of solar activity is due to end in the next couple of years, returning credit availability to normal.
If there is to be any attempt to mitigate this wholly fictional crisis, it should be done with moderate, balanced measures that take into account the needs of businesses and the importance of maintaining job growth and profit share. The fanatics urging us to take immediate action must be rejected.
We should take no unilateral action, but await a comprehensive international agreement that includes the big financial emitters like China. To do otherwise would be to risk our own economy without having the slightest impact on the problem we’re trying to fix. Local jobs will be lost due to “bailout leakage” as firms simply move offshore to countries where taxpayer money is not being wasted propping up uncompetitive firms.
Other industries will simply be wiped out due to massive increases in their costs arising from the additional tax burden. Our LNG (Lots of Noxious Gits) industry is particularly vulnerable.
If we are foolish enough to take unilateral action then we must ensure full compensation for affected companies so that they are not required to contribute to the bailout. A special Bailout Liability Underwritten Banking certificate (BLUB) crediting firms with the amount of money contributed to the bailout must be provided to all trade-exposed industries, particularly those in bailout-intensive sectors.
But before we proceed, further work needs to be done on an appropriate bailout target. Setting too high a bailout target risks imposing a massive burden on the economy. A low bailout target would provide a sensible transitional pathway to stabilising the financial sector at $550 million ppm (payouts per manager) by 2050.
This prudent, moderate, sensible, balanced course of action, while opposed by trendies and financial crisis fundamentalists, will ensure we protect the very jobs and businesses most at risk from this new secular religion.
Oh, so you thought that the torrent of criticism directed at US Congressmen for voting ‘no’ on the bail-out meant that Senators would be more likely to vote yes tonight, and that this would finally bring some reprieve?
Well, Javier Blas at the FT has news for you: the world’s super-rich don’t share your optimism.
Investors in gold are demanding “unprecedented” amounts of bullion bars and coins and moving them into their own vaults as fears about the health of the global financial system deepen. Industry executives and bankers at the London Bullion Market Association annual meeting said the extent of the move into physical gold was unseen and driven by the very rich.
“There is an enormous pick-up in investment demand. I have never seen a market like this in my 33-year career,” said Jeremy Charles, chairman of the LBMA. “The gold refineries cannot produce enough bars.” The move comes as fears grow among investors over the losses at investment vehicles previously considered almost risk-free, such as money funds. Philip Clewes-Garner, associate director of precious metals at HSBC, added that investors were not flying into gold simply because they saw it as a haven amid Wall Street’s woes. “It is a flight into gold because it is a physical asset,” he said.
Well, that’s a vote of confidence, eh readers? They’ve probably been perusing Nouriel Roubini, who reckons (bailout prospects notwithstanding) that “we are now back to the risk of a total systemic financial meltdown”:
The next step of this panic could become the mother of all bank runs, i.e. a run on the trillion dollar plus of the cross border short-term interbank liabilities of the US banking and financial system as foreign banks as starting to worry about the safety of their liquid exposures to US financial institutions; such a silent cross border bank run has already started as foreign banks are worried about the solvency of US banks and are starting to reduce their exposure. And if this run accelerates – as it may now – a total meltdown of the US financial system could occur.
We are thus now in a generalized panic mode and back to the risk of a systemic meltdown of the entire financial system. And US and foreign policy authorities seem to be clueless about what needs to be done next. Maybe they should today start with a coordinated 100 bps reduction in policy rates in all the major economies in the world to show that they are starting to seriously recognize and address this rapidly worsening financial crisis.
Doom, gloom. Still, readers may also like to be aware that in noting the ongoing travails of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, Nouriel suggests that “the only institution sound enough to swallow Goldman may be HSBC”. Another reason – as though one were needed! – why those of us who bank with HSBC’s lovely First Direct can shake our heads in bewilderment at those of you who choose not to.
I’m out in China, where I’ve just spent a couple of weeks visiting Hong Kong, Beijing and the rural province of Yunnan. Some observations on China and sustainable development to follow in a separate post, but for now let’s focus on the big news of the week: the latest burst of financial meltdown. Lehman Brothers have filed for bankruptcy protection; Merrill Lynch have been bought out; the US Treasury has bailed out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and today AIG; every time I look at my blackberry, some new catastrophe seems to be unfolding.
As I’ve been chugging around China, I’ve been re-reading James Kynge’s excellent China Shakes the World – and noting with interest what Kynge has to say about the issue of bad debts. For example:
The ‘big four’ banks, which control more than half the country’s deposits and loans, are all owned by the state … The central bank, which regulates the banking industry alongside the recently established China Banking Regulatory Commission, has a track record of bailing out the ‘big four’ every time they need it … If the various cash infusions and bad debt relief for the state banks over the last five years are added together, it transpires that China has allocated nearly $250 billion to clean up its banking system.
But now fast-forward to today, a mere couple of years after Kynge’s words were first published. Fannie and Freddie have already been bailed out – a move which, according to Nouriel Roubini, at a stroke injected around $200 billion of capital into the two of them, and took on $6 trillion of debt. As Roubini concludes,
The nationalization of Fannie and Freddie is the most radical regime change in global economic and financial affairs in decades. For the last twenty years after the collapse of the USSR, the fall of the Iron Curtain and the economic reforms in China and other emerging market economies the world economy has moved away from state ownership of the economy and towards privatization of previously stated owned enterprises. This trend was aggressively supported the United States that preached right and left the benefits of free markets and free private enterprise.
Today instead the US has performed the greatest nationalization in the history of humanity. By nationalizing Fannie and Freddie the US has increased its public assets by almost $6 trillion and has increased its public debt/liabilities by another $6 trillion. The US has also turned itself into the largest government-owned hedge fund in the world: by injecting a likely $200 billion of capital into Fannie and Freddie and taking on almost $6 trillion of liabilities of such GSEs the US has also undertaken the biggest and most levered LBO (“leveraged buy-out”) in human history that has a debt to equity ratio of 30 ($6,000 billion of debt against $200 billion of equity).
So now Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke (as originally nicknamed by Willem Buiter) have now turned the USA into the USSRA (the United Socialist State Republic of America). Socialism is indeed alive and well in America; but this is socialism for the rich, the well connected and Wall Street. A socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized with the US tax-payer being charged the bill…
And that was before today’s news that the US Treasury is taking on AIG as well, to the tune of another $85 billion, which (as the BBC observes) is “viewed by some as the most radical intervention in private business in [the Fed’s] history”. For Roubini, this is just confirmation of the worst fears:
At least in the case of Fannie and Freddie these two institutions were semi-public to begin with as they were Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). Now we get instead the first pure case of a fully private company, actually the largest insurance company in the world, being nationalized. So the US government is now the largerst insurance company in the world. So the transformation of the USA into the USSRA goes a step further.
From where I’m currently sitting in Hong Kong, it’s hard not to cast your mind back a decade to 1997/8 and the South East Asian economic crisis, when the Washington Consensus still prevailed and liberalisation was the war cry. As Steely Dan sagely put it: “those days are gone for ever; over a long time ago…”
