naked capitalism

Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns

I am posting this in the interest of widening the discussion at Naked Capitalism to include some topics in Europe.

Fitch, the credit rating agency, has just downgraded the sovereign debt ratings for the Republic of Ireland from AA+ to AA-.  That is two notches and is proof-positive that the ratings agencies are worried about the hole in Dublin’s finances.

If you read the Irish press this morning, it is all doom and gloom and has a lot to do with the banks and budget deficit.  It is not just about the ratings downgrades.

The EU has just released figures putting in doubt Ireland’s rosy scenario for cutting budget deficits.

The Irish Independent says:

Next month’s Budget may set the economy back further, but without it the country’s national debt could reach 100pc of output (GDP) by 2011, the EU Commission has said in a new analysis.

The Commission is forecasting a decline of 1.4pc in Irish GDP next year. But Brussels is not taking the impact of next month’s Budget into account, because the details are not yet known.

“Depending on the specific measures that are eventually implemented, a dampening effect on consumer demand cannot be excluded,” the Commission says in its autumn economic forecast.

Correction

On the other hand, it says that faster correction of the economy’s problems might give more support to consumption and investment by helping confidence.

The Government’s plans include a correction of 4.3pc of GDP — around €8bn — in the Budgets for 2010 and 2011.

Unless there is a compensating boost from confidence, this could also reduce the modest 2.6pc growth forecast for 2011.

These forecasts are higher than those in the Commission’s estimates last May, but it warns of the struggle facing the Irish economy in trying to return to strong growth.

Another top headline in the Irish Independent has the OECD warning that the Irish government should not rule out nationalising banks in addition to its bad bank programme, NAMA.

The Government shouldn’t rule out temporarily nationalising the country’s banks as they may require more capital to cushion against surging bad debts, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said.

The Government is setting up the so-called bad bank that will buy €77bn of property loans from banks at a discount of 30pc. Losses on those assets may leave the lenders needing extra capital.

“Further recapitalisation may be necessary as assets are being purchased below book value,” the Paris-based OECD said in a report today. “Temporary nationalisation would have a number of drawbacks, but it should not be ruled out altogether.”

The Government has already guaranteed all deposits at banks and some of their debts, pumped €7bn into Allied Irish Banks and Bank of Ireland and seized Anglo Irish Bank.

“Substantial” banking losses are likely to be met by the taxpayer and nationalisation should only be undertaken with the “utmost reluctance,” the OECD said.

The FT’s Stacy-Marie Ishmael has a piece out doubting the maths used in NAMA, which bolsters the OECD view that the bad bank may not be enough.

So you have a trifecta of bad news coming out of Ireland: a two-notch downgrade by a major ratings agency, a warning from the EU that the economy will be weak for sometime to come and that deficits targets will not be met, and another warning from the OECD that the banking situation in Ireland is still very grave.

Quite frankly, it is not looking good for an Irish recovery at this time without the help of the IMF. This all brings me back to my question one year ago: Is Ireland the next Iceland? They will be if the EU, IMF and Irish government do not take today’s bad news seriously and take drastic action to bolster the Irish banks, economy, and government finances.

Who said the financial crisis was over? It is not.

Nouriel Roubini has officially left the “hedging your bets on the economy” camp. He has declared the markets to be frothy because super low dollar borrowing rates have turned the greenback into the funding currency for the carry trade.

Far more important than the peppy rally in the stock market is the resumption of early 2007 style risk taking in the credit markets. As Gillian Tett of the Financial Times noted last week:

Earlier this month, I received a sobering e-mail from a senior, recently-retired banker. This particular man, a veteran of the credit world, had just chatted with ex-colleagues who are still in the markets – and was feeling deeply shocked.

“Forget about the events of the past 12 months … the punters are back punting as aggressively as ever,” he wrote. “Highly leveraged short-term trades are back in vogue as players … jostle to load up on everything from Reits [real estate investment trusts] and commercial property, commodities, emerging markets and regular stocks and bonds.

“Oh, I am sure the banks’ public relations people will talk about the subdued atmosphere in banking, but don’t you believe it,” he continued bitterly, noting that when money is virtually free – or, at least, at 0.5 per cent – traders feel stupid if they don’t leverage up.

“Any sense of control is being chucked out of the window. After the dotcom boom and bust it took a good few years for the market to get its collective mojo back [but] this time it has taken just a few months,” he added. He finished with a despairing question: “Was October 2008 just a dress rehearsal for the crash when this latest bubble bursts?”

In other words, everyone seems to be in on this bubble except most borrowers in the real economy. But that wasn’t the main objective…it was to reflate asset prices to save the global banking system…by rerunning the same movie that drove it off the cliff in the first place (well, this is a sequel, so there are some minor plot changes, like the dollar rather than the yen as the basis for the carry trade).

From Roubini in the Financial Times:

Since March there has been a massive rally in all sorts of risky assets… and an even bigger rally in emerging market asset classes (their stocks, bonds and currencies). At the same time, the dollar has weakened sharply, while government bond yields have gently increased but stayed low and stable.

This recovery in risky assets is in part driven by better economic fundamentals…. Whether the recovery is V-shaped, as consensus believes, or U-shaped and anaemic as I have argued, asset prices should be moving gradually higher.

But while the US and global economy have begun a modest recovery, asset prices have gone through the roof since March in a major and synchronised rally….Risky asset prices have risen too much, too soon and too fast compared with macroeconomic fundamentals.

So what is behind this massive rally? Certainly it has been helped by a wave of liquidity from near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing. But a more important factor fuelling this asset bubble is the weakness of the US dollar, driven by the mother of all carry trades. The US dollar has become the major funding currency of carry trades as the Fed has kept interest rates on hold and is expected to do so for a long time. Investors who are shorting the US dollar to buy on a highly leveraged basis higher-yielding assets and other global assets are not just borrowing at zero interest rates in dollar terms; they are borrowing at very negative interest rates – as low as negative 10 or 20 per cent annualised – as the fall in the US dollar leads to massive capital gains on short dollar positions.

Let us sum up: traders are borrowing at negative 20 per cent rates to invest on a highly leveraged basis on a mass of risky global assets that are rising in price due to excess liquidity and a massive carry trade. Every investor who plays this risky game looks like a genius – even if they are just riding a huge bubble financed by a large negative cost of borrowing – as the total returns have been in the 50-70 per cent range since March.

People’s sense of the value at risk (VAR) of their aggregate portfolios ought, instead, to have been increasing due to a rising correlation of the risks between different asset classes, all of which are driven by this common monetary policy and the carry trade. In effect, it has become one big common trade – you short the dollar to buy any global risky assets.

Yet, at the same time, the perceived riskiness of individual asset classes is declining as volatility is diminished due to the Fed’s policy of buying everything in sight – witness its proposed $1,800bn (£1,000bn, €1,200bn) purchase of Treasuries, mortgage- backed securities (bonds guaranteed by a government-sponsored enterprise such as Fannie Mae) and agency debt. By effectively reducing the volatility of individual asset classes, making them behave the same way, there is now little diversification across markets – the VAR again looks low.

So the combined effect of the Fed policy of a zero Fed funds rate, quantitative easing and massive purchase of long-term debt instruments is seemingly making the world safe – for now – for the mother of all carry trades and mother of all highly leveraged global asset bubbles.

While this policy feeds the global asset bubble it is also feeding a new US asset bubble….

The reckless US policy that is feeding these carry trades is forcing other countries to follow its easy monetary policy….This is keeping short-term rates lower than is desirable. Central banks may also be forced to lower interest rates through domestic open market operations. Some central banks, concerned about the hot money driving up their currencies, as in Brazil, are imposing controls on capital inflows. Either way, the carry trade bubble will get worse: if there is no forex intervention and foreign currencies appreciate, the negative borrowing cost of the carry trade becomes more negative. If intervention or open market operations control currency appreciation, the ensuing domestic monetary easing feeds an asset bubble in these economies. So the perfectly correlated bubble across all global asset classes gets bigger by the day.

But one day this bubble will burst, leading to the biggest co-ordinated asset bust ever: if factors lead the dollar to reverse and suddenly appreciate – as was seen in previous reversals, such as the yen-funded carry trade – the leveraged carry trade will have to be suddenly closed as investors cover their dollar shorts. A stampede will occur as closing long leveraged risky asset positions across all asset classes funded by dollar shorts triggers a co-ordinated collapse of all those risky assets – equities, commodities, emerging market asset classes and credit instruments.

Why will these carry trades unravel? First, the dollar cannot fall to zero and at some point it will stabilise; when that happens the cost of borrowing in dollars will suddenly become zero, rather than highly negative, and the riskiness of a reversal of dollar movements would induce many to cover their shorts. Second, the Fed cannot suppress volatility forever – its $1,800bn purchase plan will be over by next spring. Third, if US growth surprises on the upside in the third and fourth quarters, markets may start to expect a Fed tightening to come sooner, not later. Fourth, there could be a flight from risk prompted by fear of a double dip recession or geopolitical risks, such as a military confrontation between the US/Israel and Iran. As in 2008, when such a rise in risk aversion was associated with a sharp appreciation of the dollar, as investors sought the safety of US Treasuries, this renewed risk aversion would trigger a dollar rally at a time when huge short dollar positions will have to be closed.

This unraveling may not occur for a while, as easy money and excessive global liquidity can push asset prices higher for a while. But the longer and bigger the carry trades and the larger the asset bubble, the bigger will be the ensuing asset bubble crash. The Fed and other policymakers seem unaware of the monster bubble they are creating. The longer they remain blind, the harder the markets will fall.

The Journal has a less apocalyptic story on the very same topic: “Dollar Calls the Tune for Stocks, Bonds, Oil“:

A joke making the rounds among stock investors is that they’ve all become currency traders. In recent weeks, the relationship between moves in the dollar and stocks has been incredibly tight; as the dollar rises, stocks fall and vice versa.

And it isn’t just stocks. Links between the dollar, corporate bonds, energy prices and gold have grown closer. Traders and analysts point to one factor as the cause: the Federal Reserve’s efforts to flood the financial markets with dollars. They say the Fed has created an unusual environment where investors essentially have two choices — hold onto dollars or buy something, anything else.

The connections between assets have been growing as investors become more fixated on how and when the Fed will turn off the spigot.

The intensity of the links “tells me there is a lot of nervousness and a lot of fast money,” says Michael O’Rourke, a market strategist at BTIG.

As a result, some believe the markets are in a new bubble, driven by interest rates essentially at zero, which will pop sooner rather than later. That camp includes Pimco’s Bill Gross, who last week wrote that the six-month rally in riskier assets, spurred on by the Fed and U.S. Treasury, “is likely at its pinnacle.”

A lot of investors I know lamented the loss of Gillian Tett. As the Financial Times’ capital markets editor in the runup to the crisis, she had provided very insightful commentary on some of the more arcane goings-on in the financial markets. I’ve had reason to look at her older commentary (circa 2004-2005) and some of it is freakishily prescient. But then she got promoted, she went to work on her book, and her writings were less frequent and just not as crisp.

Well, we may be getting the old Miss Tett back, and we all should be careful what we wished for. This article is very much like some pieces she wrote in January 2007…..and she says we’ll know better if the “reflate the economy by creating an asset bubble” strategy will work in 6 months.

Um, first we have the ugly 6 month parallel. The real break in the credit markets started in July 2007….6 months out from her January 2007 pieces.

Second, she indicates that most observers recognize the rally is not the result of fundamentals (duh!) but the result of excessive liquidity chasing assets. She adds this:

Now, some western policymakers like to argue – or hope – that this striking rally could be beneficial, in a way, even if it is not initially based on fundamentals. After all, the argument goes, if markets rebound sharply, that should boost animal spirits in a way that could eventually seep through to the “real” economy….

Yet, what worries me is that it is still very unclear that that pile of damp wood – aka the real economy – truly will catch fire, in a sustainable way.

Tett is being way too cautious. Someone tried this very experiment once and it was a complete disaster.

In 1985, the US bilateral trade deficit with Japan had gotten so bad that even the “free markets” oriented Reagan administration felt it had to do something about it. The result was the Plaza accord, a coordinated currency intervention to push down the greenback.

It was narrowly too successful and broadly a failure. The dollar fell further than anyone wanted it to, over 50% versus the yen. In fact, two years later, another coordinated intervention, the Louvre accord, was implemented to drive the dollar back up.

Even though US imports from Japan fell, US exports to Japan barely budged. The trade barriers were structural. But the Japanese now had a very pricey currency, and their exports to other countries fell also.

So the authorities figured they’d try to stimulate consumer spending via asset appreciation. Notice how Japan’s problem then is analogous to China’s now: an economy that depends on exports with insufficient consumer spending (of course, one problem in Japan that everyone seems to forget is the small size of their homes. How can you consume a lot if you have restricted living and storage space?). The idea was that the wealth effect would lead people to spend more and raise the level of domestic growth, offsetting the fall in exports.

We know how that movie ended.

Asset bubbles beget more bubbles unless the authorities shrink the financial sector. Tett’s colleague Wolfgang Munchau wrote earlier in the week:

This is exactly what the economist Hyman Minsky predicted in his financial instability hypothesis.** He postulated that a world with a large financial sector and an excessive emphasis on the production of investment goods creates instability both in terms of output and prices.

While, according to Minsky, these are the deep causes of instability, the mechanism through which instability comes about is the way governments and central banks respond to crises. The state has potent means to end a recession, but the policies it uses give rise to the next phase of instabiliy….The world has witnessed a proliferation of financial bubbles and extreme economic instability that cannot be explained by any of the established macroeconomic models. Minsky is about all we have.

His policy conclusions are disturbing, especially if contrasted with what is actually happening. In their crisis response, world leaders have focused on bonuses and other irrelevant side-issues. But they have failed to address the financial sector’s overall size. So if Minsky is right, instability should continue and get worse.

From Tett:

Earlier this month, I received a sobering e-mail from a senior, recently-retired banker. This particular man, a veteran of the credit world, had just chatted with ex-colleagues who are still in the markets – and was feeling deeply shocked.

“Forget about the events of the past 12 months … the punters are back punting as aggressively as ever,” he wrote. “Highly leveraged short-term trades are back in vogue as players … jostle to load up on everything from Reits [real estate investment trusts] and commercial property, commodities, emerging markets and regular stocks and bonds.

“Oh, I am sure the banks’ public relations people will talk about the subdued atmosphere in banking, but don’t you believe it,” he continued bitterly, noting that when money is virtually free – or, at least, at 0.5 per cent – traders feel stupid if they don’t leverage up.

“Any sense of control is being chucked out of the window. After the dotcom boom and bust it took a good few years for the market to get its collective mojo back [but] this time it has taken just a few months,” he added. He finished with a despairing question: “Was October 2008 just a dress rehearsal for the crash when this latest bubble bursts?”

I daresay this missive reflects some element of hyperbole. But I have quoted it at length because the question is becoming more critical. Six months ago, the financial system was in deep distress, reeling from a meltdown. Now despair and panic have been replaced not simply by relief – but, in some quarters, euphoria. Never mind the high-profile rally that has occurred in the equity markets; what is perhaps most stunning is the less visible rebound in debt and derivatives markets, as risk assets have displayed what Barclays describes as a “stellar performance”

Robert Johnson, former chief economist to the Senate Banking Committee, submitted testimony to a House Financial Services Committee hearing on OTC derivatives. His written testimony is to be posted today.

While his remarks are worth reading in their entirety, one bit that caught my attention was his discussion of TDTR, or “Too Difficult to Resolve.” Many readers and economists such as Willem Buiter have argued, forcefully, that it is essential to develop what Buiter calls a “special resolution regime,” which is a fancy way of saying a specific set of rules and practices for putting big financial players into bankruptcy.

I expressed concerns about dealing with the difficulties of Too Big Too Fail institutions yesterday, saying (in effect) that many of the appealing-sounding ideas (including some I had favored, like putting credit default swaps on an exchange) were not workable or would not solve the problem (for instance, as Satyajit Das explained at some length, the amount of initial margin it would take to deal with “jump to default” risk would make credit default swaps uneconomic. No one is willing to kill CDS, which would be the effect of such measures. An undercapitalized exchange creates a concentrated point of failure, an AIG waiting to happen. And even though we would love to shut that casino down overnight, having looked into it is some depth, the cure would probably be at least as bad, if not worse than the disease. The best of the bad choices on offer is to regulate them like insurance, ideally more intrusively, and take affirmative measures to contain the market, particularly restricting the writing of “naked” short exposures).

Many readers were unhappy, but shooting the messenger does not change the fact that this is an even bigger problem to tackle than most realize.

From Johnson (note the link is not live yet, for some reason; Johnson was updating his testimony):

It would not be too strong to say that the architecture of derivatives regulation and market structure is the heart of Too Big to Fail policy.

Absent a drastic simplification of derivative exposures and a transparent and comprehensive improvement in the monitoring of those positions when imbedded in large firms, complex derivatives render these behemoth institutions Too Difficult to Resolve (TDTR). I say that because, the policies of resolving troubled financial institutions, so- called enhanced resolution powers, cannot be invoked unless government authorities have the capacity to assess and understand the entanglements of derivatives exposures throughout the financial sector and the economy at large. Resolution powers themselves can be quite useful and should be passed into law as a part of the financial reform you are considering. The ability to undertake “prompt corrective action” vis a vis bank holding companies and financial services holding companies, as the FDIC can now do vis a vis failing banks, would diminish the probabilities of a cascading bankruptcy or other disruptive panic.

Yet opaque, complex entangled derivatives exposures would serve to deter the authorities from invoking those powers and taking over a failing institution for fear of setting off a system wide calamity of magnitudes that policy officials can dread but not understand or estimate. Complex entanglements through derivatives exposures discourage government officials who are the risk managers on behalf of the citizens of our nation from invoking and using those powers. The spider web of complex opaque derivatives renders enhanced resolution powers impotent.

It is in this respect that complex and opaque derivatives exposures at large financial institutions contributed mightily to a policy of induced forbearance, as we witnessed in the first quarter of 2009. That experience, as we have seen, was very demoralizing to our citizens who have put their faith in philosophies that emphasize the use of markets as a mechanism for achieving social goals. The inhibitions that authorities experience in applying market discipline to large financial institutions and their managements tend to undermine belief in the use of markets.

What makes induced forbearance of TDTR institutions even more troubling is that their potential creditors would understand that they will not have their debts restructured when government officials are deterred by complex derivative exposures from taking a TDTR institution into receivership and restructuring the entity. This would create the perverse impact of reducing the risk premium on the unsecured debt of these institutions, lowering their funding costs, and giving them incentive to take more risk. It would also create a competitive advantage for TDTR firms that encourages an increase in their market share relative to those firms who had to pay more for funding because their creditors would fear that their bonds could be restructured in the event of solvency problems. TDTR financial institutions are enabled to get larger and larger by wrapping themselves in a spider web of complex derivatives and thereby inducing authorities to make ever-larger scale gambles on forbearance. Forbearance is a two-sided coin. Firms can continue to lose money rather than return to health. This is not a tolerable state of affairs for taxpayers who are held hostage by the fear of resolving complex intertwined institutions.

You are a teacher at a local primary school. Each school day you and some of your colleagues watch over the children at the school playground to make sure all of the children follow the rules and keep their hands to themselves. Your role is to keep the children safe. Mind you, this is a Montessori School where the philosophy is to let children explore within set boundaries.  But, if a child hurts another or a child’s behavior poses an immediate risk to others, you always step in.

In fact, one child, Charlie has been a bit of a problem recently. Charlie is one of the biggest kids at the school, a boisterous sixth grader who likes to push and play with matches. Last July 4th, it seems he got a hold of a video on the Internet blog Credit Writedowns on how not to use fireworks.  Contrary to the video’s intention, he rather liked seeing things blow up and courting danger. You see Charlie is a bit of a pyromaniac. You have repeatedly had to stop Charlie from bringing matches to the playground and lighting things on fire. But, recently you have had to confiscate firecrackers and suspend him from school.

But, one day a new headmaster comes to the school. He doesn’t believe much in the need for teachers to monitor the children. The children can monitor themselves. Unfortunately, Charlie has a bit of a following at school and before you know a lot of the kids are lighting firecrackers on the schoolyard. No one gets seriously hurt – just a few minor burns here and there. So Charlie ups the ante to M-80s like he saw in the video. There was a serious close call when he put the frog in a jar with the M-80, but self-monitoring has worked pretty well and there have still been no major casualties.

That’s when little John comes up to you and asks, “Ms. Watkins, why does Charlie have lit dynamite?”

In case it’s not obvious:

• Charlie is a too big to fail bank.
• The matches are debt, the firecrackers are derivatives, the M-80s are asset-backed securities and the dynamite is OTC derivatives.
• You (Ms. Watkins) are Brooksley Born
• The headmaster is Alan Greenspan
• Little John is another smaller community bank
• The other children are banks and citizens of the broader economy
• The frog-glass incident was LTCM’s collapse
• The lit dynamite incident was Lehman Brothers

In the past, I have likened regulators to referees or playground monitors to illustrate why the concept that markets are self-regulating is absurd. In the last post, “Frontline – The Warning: Who Knew About the Looming Financial Crisis?” Alan Greenspan was at war with regulator Brooksley Born over this concept of self-regulation. Born believed that regulation was a necessity in any financial market. Greenspan believed that markets are inherently self-regulating. Even fraud was self-regulating through market discipline in his view. I believe he has now repudiated this. However, Born lost that battle with ugly consequences when the market she wanted regulated, OTC derivatives, blew up via AIG.

Self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance.

Note: Even though, I am pointing to Buiter’s piece here, I am not a believer in regulation-heavy in the least. Nevertheless, his ideas do merit consideration.

Watch the hour-long retrospective which aired last night on PBS’s Frontline.  It should be very enlightening in regards to the seeds of the bubble and meltdown.  It examines who the players in the 1990s and 2000s were, what their attitude to regulation was, and how lax regulation created a bubble and a bust.

Also see the following posts for more background:

• 1987
• Freshwater versus saltwater circa 1988
• 1995
• Deregulation efforts from the late 1990s were blocked
• FRONTLINE: Inside the Meltdown of Sept. 18, 2008

(video was to be embedded below, but I cannot get it to run on Naked Capitalism; Here is a link to Frontline for the video which runs just under one hour)

George Washington of  Washington’s Blog.

Joe Biden said yesterday:

My grandpop used to say … “When the guy in Minooka’s out of work, it’s an economic slowdown. When your brother- in-law’s out of work, it’s a recession. When you’re out of work, it’s a depression.”

[Asked how he views it, Biden responded:] Well, it’s a depression. It’s a depression for millions of Americans, through no fault of their own.

Before you decide whether Joe is just shooting his mouth off or he’s onto something, read this, this and this.

Wolfgang Munchau has a solid, thoughtful piece at the Financial Times which argues that the widely applauded rallies in stock and commodity markets are already looking very much like bubbles, and the efforts to contend with them (either directly, or as a result of the need to start reining in liquidity) is likely to kick off another crisis.

That much had been said in various ways in other venues, although Munchau does offer valuation data to back up his views. The more novel part of his argument is that instability is the inevitable result of an overly-large financial sector, and the result is bigger and bigger swings in output (meaning GDP growth) and prices.

Ouch. And the two scenarios he sets forth are not pretty either.

From the Financial Times:

On the surface, this looks like 2003 and 2004 when the previous housing, credit, commodity and equity bubbles started to inflate, helped by low nominal interest rates and a lack of inflation. There is one big difference, though. This bubble will burst sooner.

So how do we know this is a bubble? My two favourite metrics of stock market valuation are Cape, which stands for the cyclically adjusted price/earnings ratio, and Q. Cape was invented by Robert Shiller, professor of economics and finance at Yale University. It measures the 10-year moving average of the inflation-adjusted p/e ratio. Q is a metric of market capitalisation divided by net worth…

…they both tend to agree on relative market mispricing most of the time. In mid-September both measures concluded that the US stock market was overvalued by some 35 to 40 per cent. The markets have since gone up a lot more than the moving average of earnings….

The single reason for this renewed bubble is the extremely low level of nominal interest rates, which has induced people to move into all kinds of risky assets…

But unlike five years ago, central banks now have the dual role of targeting monetary and financial stability. As has been pointed out time and again, those two objectives can easily come into conflict. In Europe, for example, the European Central Bank would under normal circumstances already have started to raise interest rates. The reason it sits tight is to prevent damage to Europe’s chronically under-capitalised banking system, which still depends on the ECB for life support. The same is true, more or less, elsewhere.

Now, I agree there is no prospect of a significant rise in inflation over the next 12 months, but the chances rise significantly after 2010.

Once perceptions of rising inflation return, central banks might be forced to switch towards a much more aggressive monetary policy relatively quickly – much quicker than during the previous cycle. A short inflationary boom could be followed by another recession, another banking crisis, and perhaps deflation. We should not see inflation and deflation as opposite scenarios, but as sequential ones. We could be in for a period of extreme price instability, in both directions, as central banks lose control.

This is exactly what the economist Hyman Minsky predicted in his financial instability hypothesis.** He postulated that a world with a large financial sector and an excessive emphasis on the production of investment goods creates instability both in terms of output and prices.

While, according to Minsky, these are the deep causes of instability, the mechanism through which instability comes about is the way governments and central banks respond to crises. The state has potent means to end a recession, but the policies it uses give rise to the next phase of instabiliy….The world has witnessed a proliferation of financial bubbles and extreme economic instability that cannot be explained by any of the established macroeconomic models. Minsky is about all we have.

His policy conclusions are disturbing, especially if contrasted with what is actually happening. In their crisis response, world leaders have focused on bonuses and other irrelevant side-issues. But they have failed to address the financial sector’s overall size. So if Minsky is right, instability should continue and get worse.

Our present situation can give rise to two scenarios – or some combination of the two. The first is that central banks start exiting at some point in 2010, triggering another fall in the prices of risky assets. In the UK, for example, any return to a normal monetary policy will almost inevitably imply another fall in the housing market, which is currently propped up by ultra-cheap mortgages.

Alternatively, central banks might prioritise financial stability over price stability and keep the monetary floodgates open for as long as possible. This, I believe, would cause the mother of all financial market crises – a bond market crash – to be followed by depression and deflation.

In other words, there is danger no matter how the central banks react. Successful monetary policy could be like walking along a perilous ridge, on either side of which lies a precipice of instability.

For all we know, there may not be a safe way down.

Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.

Earlier today I wrote a post featuring comments by Marc Faber as I like to do from time to time.  In this particular case Dr. Faber was waxing prosaically about an eventual bankruptcy of the U.S. government.  His money quote was:

“Next station is when the U.S. government goes bust.”

I love this guy. Quite frankly, the man is a quote machine.  He makes a lot of outrageous statements that get him noticed.  Here are a few that I have featured in the past:

• Oct 2009 – “Monetary policy in the United States will stay expansionary”
• Sep 2009 – “The future will be a total disaster, with a collapse of our capitalistic system as we know it today, wars, massive government debt defaults and the impoverishment of large segments of Western society.”
• May 2009 – “I am 100% sure that the U.S. will go into hyperinflation”
• Mar 2009 – “The feds poured the gasoline and lit the match. Now they’ve joined the fire department”
• Nov 2008 – “I advise every American to hold his gold outside of the United States“
• Mar 2009 – “Don’t underestimate the power of printing money.”

The last one is my all-time favorite.  And there are many more available at Credit Writedowns and elsewhere.  Dr. Doom is very entertaining indeed – which is why I quote him so often.  But, is he right?

That’s a good question – one I will take up indirectly by introducing the latest piece by Martin Wolf, another author I have featured at Credit Writedowns from time to time. You may have seen me tweet this earlier today. I had intended to add it to the links for tomorrow, but Niels Jensen, who I also feature often, convinced me to write it up as an ‘antidote’ to Faber.

Here’s how Wolf begins his article:

It is the season of dollar panic. These panic-mongers are varied: gold bugs, fiscal hawks and many others agree that the dollar, the dominant currency since the first world war, is on its death bed. Hyperinflationary collapse is in store. Does this make sense? No. All the same, the dollar-based global monetary system is defective. It would be good to start building alternative arrangements.

This is exactly what the Chinese are doing. They are preparing themselves for a non-dollar future. This is why the Chinese are buying gold. This is why the Chinese are settling trade in Yuan. And this also why the Chinese are getting a bunch of other countries onside.  But they are not looking for a dollar crash as I indicated last week.

Then, there is the part about Dollar weakness being a sign of inflation. Here’s what Wolf has to say about this idea:

The dollar’s correction is not just natural; it is helpful. It will lower the risk of deflation in the US and facilitate the correction of the global “imbalances” that helped cause the crisis. I agree with a forthcoming article by Fred Bergsten of the Peterson Institute for International Economics that “huge inflows of foreign capital to the US facilitated the over-leveraging and underpricing of risk”.* Even those who are sceptical of this agree that the US needs export-led growth.

I hope this argument sounds familiar because it is one I made when I asked is the Fed just jawboning? The U.S. wants – it needs a lower dollar to avoid deflation. Quantitative easing is not solving the deflation question. The U.S. government wants a strong dollar? Well, policymakers say one thing and wish for another. The U.S. insistence on focusing on global imbalances at the G-20 should tell you what policy makers really want. This is why the dollar is falling.

The problem of course is that the dollar’s recent rout is not necessarily helping the U.S. because the dollar is overvalued vis-a-vis a host of pegged currencies. And while those currencies are under pressure to drop the peg, they are resisting because they do not want to move toward a more re-balanced global growth paradigm unless forced to do so.  Unless these countries (read China) do something on the currency front, expect more of this, this and this – protectionism.

Then, the question arises, if everyone hates the dollar, what are they moving to? Wolf says:

Finally, what can replace the dollar? Unless and until China removes exchange controls and develops deep and liquid financial markets – probably a generation away – the euro is the dollar’s only serious competitor. At present, 65 per cent of the world’s reserves are in dollars and 25 per cent in euros. Yes, there could be some shift. But it is likely to be slow. The eurozone also has high fiscal deficits and debts. The dollar will exist 30 years from now; the euro’s fate is less certain.

This view may be too complacent. The danger of a collapse of the dollar is small and of its replacement by another currency still smaller. But a global monetary system that rests on the currency of a single country is problematic, for both issuer and users. The risks are also growing, particularly since the emergence of “Bretton Woods II” – the practice of managing exchange rates against the dollar.

I liken this argument to George Soros’ comments on dollar weakness: “The dollar is a very weak currency except all the others.” Right now, there is no alternative to the dollar.  Some people are fleeing U.S. assets if they can. But the alternatives are limited and this limits how far the dollar will fall. And this is unfortunate because the monetary system now in place is in need of change.  Without it, we are likely to see nationalistic policy responses to economic weakness, which will induce conflict.

Wolf says:

I arrive, by a somewhat different route, at the same conclusion as Mr Bergsten: the global role of the dollar is not in the interests of the US. The case for moving to a different system is very strong. This is not because the dollar’s role is now endangered. It is rather because it impairs domestic and global stability. The time for alternatives is now.

Apropos alternative monetary systems, we might start with Paul Davidson’s ideas, which I first highlighted in November.  So there is no hyperinflation, no U.S. national bankruptcy, and  no dollar crash coming. But, the financial crisis demonstrates we are living on borrowed time and need a new monetary system. The time is now.

Source

The rumours of the dollar’s death are much exaggerated – Martin Wolf

Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns

The following is my translation of a much-discussed article that appeared in Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet at the weekend.  This information was being withheld from the public and leaked at an inopportune moment.

Note that the Swedish government has secretly been preparing the banks for financial Armageddon, encouraging Swedbank into a rights issue which arguably was conducted under fraudulent pretenses – very reminiscent of Bank of America’s shareholder vote for the merger with Merrill Lynch.  In August, I asked “Why is Swedbank doing a second rights issue?.” Now we know.

This is the kind of thing that topples governments.

Secret meeting on the crisis in Latvian

Finance Minister Anders Borg has had secret talks with the major Swedish banks and warned of a near economic collapse in Latvia, Svenska Dagbladet has learned. A nightmare scenario for Swedbank and SEB.

Yesterday Anders Borg issued a stark warning to the Latvian Government that it must take its financial problems seriously.

The promised cuts must be implemented when the new Latvian budget is presented in late October, according to Finance Minister.

The international community’s patience is very limited, stressed Anders Borg at the summit of European finance ministers in Gothenburg where he hosts as the finance minister in Presidency.

His statement came after recent reports from Latvia on political divisions in the ongoing budget negotiations.

But for Swedish bank heads, Borg’s move came as no surprise. According to several independent sources, Anders Borg, over the last few weeks, has contacted the senior management of major banks and warned them of an acute political crisis in Latvia. This in turn can lead to both a devaluation and eventually a default. It is a kind of national bankruptcy, similar to what hit Iceland last fall.

In secret talks with Swedish banks, Anders Borg explained the growing pressure that exists within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to force Latvia into a devaluation.

A collapse in Latvia would have serious implications for several major Swedish banks. With a devaluation the already high loan losses would explode overnight, especially because many Latvians have loans in euro, which would become significantly more expensive.

Swedbank has up to today lent 61 billion kroner to Latvian individuals and businesses. The figure for SEB is 40 billion, while Nordea has 30 billion in loans.

For Swedbank a possible devaluation would come at an especially poor time. The bank is currently in the middle of a second rights issue in which shareholders have been asked to put up 15 billion.

CEO Michael Wolf’s message to shareholders and customers has repeatedly been that the money would be used for offensive investments. To then have to deal with a severe national bankruptcy in one of its major markets and see new issue money disappear into a black hole would be a severe blow to the bank’s credibility.

That a serious crisis approaches in Latvia has already been flagged by Anders Borg in the budget he presented a few weeks ago. On page 99 he writes:

"Since it is difficult to safely assess Latvia’s ability to pay and with conditions for recovery, one cannot completely exclude the risk of a major default."

The background to the current situation is a crash in the Baltic economies. Latvia is just the worst hit. This year, the country’s GDP is to shrink by as much as 18 percent.

This led to a rescue package cobbled together at Christmas last year. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the EU and the Nordic countries decided on payments totaling SEK 80 billion, of which Sweden accounts for 7 billion.

An essential condition for aid money, however, is that Latvia implement substantial cuts in order to get the economy in balance.

This means wage cuts for state employees in over 15 percent, including hospital closures and major tax increases.

In July of last year Latvia went to reduce their spending for next year’s budget by more than 7.5 billion crowns.  It opened the door to  a further one billion disbursements from the IMF and the EU.

But then, the domestic political situation deteriorated. The previous Latvian government fell in February and since then the country has been governed by a coalition of five parties. The Prime Minister is Valdis Dombrovskis.  Next year come elections again.

Two of the parties in this five-party coalition have now objected to the previously announced savings of 7.5 billion. Some want to go back on parts of the promise and believe that a reasonable savings is instead about 4 billion kroner.

The goal to save 500 million lats (7.5 billion kroner) is practically impossible to achieve without eliminating several parts of the economy, Vents Armands Krauklis from the influential Liberal Party, which sits in the government coalition, said the day before yesterday.

24 hours later came the response from the EU.

"Latvia does not have much room for maneuver; It must fulfill its letter-of intent," said Anders Borg yesterday in Gothenburg to the news agency Direkt.

Original Source

Hemligt möte om lettisk kris – Svenska Dagblaget

Also see my August post, “Zombie banks Scandinavian edition and the threat of too big to fail.” This problem looms even larger now.

Update 7 Oct 2009: minor translation corrections were made resulting from reader suggestion.