global financial crash yay!
- Thread starter sufi
- Start date
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Snagged off ILX, from Stratfor:
China and the Arabian Peninsula as Market Stabilizers
By George Friedman
The single most interesting thing about today's global economy is what has not occurred. In 1979, oil prices soared to slightly more than $100 a barrel in current dollars, and they are approaching that historic high again. Meanwhile, the subprime meltdown continues to play out. Many financial institutions have been hurt, many individual lives have been shattered and many Wall Street operators once considered brilliant have been declared dunderheads. Despite all the predictions that the current situation is just the tip of the iceberg, however, the crisis is progressing in a fairly orderly fashion. Distinguish here between financial institutions, financial markets and the economy. People in the financial world tend to confuse the three. Some financial institutions are being hurt badly. Those experiencing the pain mistakenly think their suffering reflects the condition of the financial markets and economy. But the financial markets are managing, as is the economy.
What we are seeing is the convergence of two massive forces. Oil prices, along with primary commodity prices in general, have soared. Also, one of the periodic financial bubbles -- the subprime mortgage market -- has burst. Either of these alone should have created global havoc. Neither has. The stock market has not plummeted. The Standard & Poor's 500 fell from a high of about 1,565 in mid-October to a low of 1,400 on Oct. 19. Since then, it has rebounded as high as 1,550. Given the media rhetoric and the heads rolling in the financial sector, we would expect to see devastating numbers. And yet, we are not.
Nor are the numbers devastating in the bond markets. By definition, a liquidity crisis occurs when the money supply is too tight and demand is too great. In other words, a liquidity crisis would be reflected in high interest rates. That hasn't happened. In fact, both short-term and, particularly, long-term interest rates have trended downward over the past weeks. It might be said that interest rates are low, but that lenders won't lend. If so, that is sectoral and short-term at most. Low interest rates and no liquidity is an oxymoron.
This is not the result of actions at the Federal Reserve. The Fed can influence short-term rates, but the longer the yield curve, the longer the payoff date on a loan or bond and the less impact the Fed has. Long-term rates reflect the current availability of money and expectations on interest rates in the future.
In the U.S. stock market -- and world markets, for that matter -- we have seen nothing like the devastation prophesied. As we have said in the past, the subprime crisis compared with the savings and loan crisis, for example, is by itself small potatoes. Sure, those financial houses that stocked up on the securitized mortgage debt are going to be hurt, but that does not translate into a geopolitical event, or even into a recession. Many people are arguing that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and that defaults in other categories of the mortgage market coupled with declining housing markets will set off a devastating chain reaction.
That may well be the case, though something weird is going on here. Given the broad belief that the subprime crisis is only the beginning of a general financial crisis, and that the economy will go into recession, we would have expected major market declines by now. Markets discount in anticipation of events, not after events have happened. Historically, market declines occur about six months before recessions begin. So far, however, the perceived liquidity crisis has not been reflected in higher long-term interest rates, and the perceived recession has not been reflected in a significant decline in the global equity markets.
When we add in surging oil and commodity prices, we would have expected all hell to break loose in these markets. Certainly, the consequences of high commodity prices during the 1970s helped drive up interest rates as money was transferred to Third World countries that were selling commodities. As a result, the cost of money for modernizing aging industrial plants in the United States surged into double digits, while equity markets were unable to serve capital needs and remained flat.
China and the Arabian Peninsula as Market Stabilizers
By George Friedman
The single most interesting thing about today's global economy is what has not occurred. In 1979, oil prices soared to slightly more than $100 a barrel in current dollars, and they are approaching that historic high again. Meanwhile, the subprime meltdown continues to play out. Many financial institutions have been hurt, many individual lives have been shattered and many Wall Street operators once considered brilliant have been declared dunderheads. Despite all the predictions that the current situation is just the tip of the iceberg, however, the crisis is progressing in a fairly orderly fashion. Distinguish here between financial institutions, financial markets and the economy. People in the financial world tend to confuse the three. Some financial institutions are being hurt badly. Those experiencing the pain mistakenly think their suffering reflects the condition of the financial markets and economy. But the financial markets are managing, as is the economy.
What we are seeing is the convergence of two massive forces. Oil prices, along with primary commodity prices in general, have soared. Also, one of the periodic financial bubbles -- the subprime mortgage market -- has burst. Either of these alone should have created global havoc. Neither has. The stock market has not plummeted. The Standard & Poor's 500 fell from a high of about 1,565 in mid-October to a low of 1,400 on Oct. 19. Since then, it has rebounded as high as 1,550. Given the media rhetoric and the heads rolling in the financial sector, we would expect to see devastating numbers. And yet, we are not.
Nor are the numbers devastating in the bond markets. By definition, a liquidity crisis occurs when the money supply is too tight and demand is too great. In other words, a liquidity crisis would be reflected in high interest rates. That hasn't happened. In fact, both short-term and, particularly, long-term interest rates have trended downward over the past weeks. It might be said that interest rates are low, but that lenders won't lend. If so, that is sectoral and short-term at most. Low interest rates and no liquidity is an oxymoron.
This is not the result of actions at the Federal Reserve. The Fed can influence short-term rates, but the longer the yield curve, the longer the payoff date on a loan or bond and the less impact the Fed has. Long-term rates reflect the current availability of money and expectations on interest rates in the future.
In the U.S. stock market -- and world markets, for that matter -- we have seen nothing like the devastation prophesied. As we have said in the past, the subprime crisis compared with the savings and loan crisis, for example, is by itself small potatoes. Sure, those financial houses that stocked up on the securitized mortgage debt are going to be hurt, but that does not translate into a geopolitical event, or even into a recession. Many people are arguing that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, and that defaults in other categories of the mortgage market coupled with declining housing markets will set off a devastating chain reaction.
That may well be the case, though something weird is going on here. Given the broad belief that the subprime crisis is only the beginning of a general financial crisis, and that the economy will go into recession, we would have expected major market declines by now. Markets discount in anticipation of events, not after events have happened. Historically, market declines occur about six months before recessions begin. So far, however, the perceived liquidity crisis has not been reflected in higher long-term interest rates, and the perceived recession has not been reflected in a significant decline in the global equity markets.
When we add in surging oil and commodity prices, we would have expected all hell to break loose in these markets. Certainly, the consequences of high commodity prices during the 1970s helped drive up interest rates as money was transferred to Third World countries that were selling commodities. As a result, the cost of money for modernizing aging industrial plants in the United States surged into double digits, while equity markets were unable to serve capital needs and remained flat.
Gavin
booty bass intellectual
Part 2
So what is going on?
Part of the answer might well be this: For the past five years or so, China has been throwing around huge amounts of cash. The Chinese made big, big money selling overseas -- more than even the growing Chinese economy could metabolize. That led to massive dollar reserves in China and the need for the Chinese to invest outside their own financial markets. Given that the United States is China's primary consumer and the only economy large and stable enough to absorb its reserves, the Chinese -- state and nonstate entities alike -- regard the U.S. markets as safe-havens for their investments. That is one of the things that have kept interest rates relatively low and the equity markets moving. This process of Asian money flowing into U.S. markets goes back to the early 1980s.
Another part of the answer might lie in the self-stabilizing feature of oil prices, the rise of which should be devastating to U.S. markets at first glance. The size of the price surge and the stability of demand have created dollar reserves in oil-exporting countries far in excess of anything that can be absorbed locally. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has made so much money, particularly in 2007, that it has to invest in overseas markets.
In some sense, it doesn't matter where the money goes. Money, like oil, is fungible, which means that if all the petrodollars went into Europe then other money would flow into the United States as European interest rates fell and European stocks rose. But there are always short-term factors to consider. The Persian Gulf oil producers and the Chinese have one thing in common -- they are linked to the dollar. As the dollar declines, assets in other countries become more expensive, particularly if you regard the dollar's fall as ultimately reversible. Dollars invested in dollar-denominated vehicles make sense. Therefore, we are seeing two massive inflows of dollars to the United States -- one from China and one from the energy industry. China's dollar reserves are derived from sales to the United States, so it is stuck in the dollar zone. Plus, the Chinese have pegged the yuan to the dollar. The energy industry, also part of the dollar zone, needs to find a home for its money -- and the largest, most liquid dollar-denominated market in the world is the United States.
The United States has created an odd dollar zone drawing in China and the Persian Gulf. (Other energy producers such as Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela have no problem using their dollars internally.) Unhinging China from the dollar is impossible; it sells in dollars to the United States, a linkage that gives it a stable platform, even if it pays relatively more for oil. Additionally, the Arabian Peninsula sells oil in dollars, and trying to convert those contracts to euros would be mind-bogglingly difficult. Existing contracts and new contracts managed in multiple currencies -- both spot and forward managed -- would have to be renegotiated. Any business working in multiple currencies faces a challenge, and the bigger the business, the bigger the challenge. The Arabian Peninsula accordingly will not be able to hedge currencies and manage the contracts just by flipping a switch.
This provides an explanation for the resiliency of U.S. markets. Every time the news on the subprime situation sounds so horrendous that it seems the U.S. markets will crash, the opposite occurs. In fact, markets in the United States rose through the early days, then sold off and now have rallied again. Where is the money coming from?
We would argue that the money is coming from the dollar bloc and its huge free cash flow from China, and at the moment, the Arabian Peninsula in particular. This influx usually happens anonymously through ordinary market actions, though occasionally it becomes apparent through large, single transactions that are quite open. Last week, for example, Dubai invested $7 billion in Citigroup, helping to clean up the company's balance sheet and, not incidentally, letting it be known that dollars being accumulated in the Persian Gulf will be used to stabilize U.S. markets.
This is not an act of charity. Dubai and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as China, are holding huge dollar reserves, and the last thing they want to do is sell those dollars in sufficient quantity to drive the dollar's price even lower. Nor do they want to see a financial crisis in the U.S. markets. Both the Chinese and the Arabs have far too much to lose to want such an outcome. So, in an infinite number of open market transactions, as well as occasionally public investments, they are moving to support the U.S. markets, albeit for their own reasons.
It is the only explanation for what we are seeing. The markets should be selling off like crazy, given the financial problems. They are not. They keep bouncing back, no matter how hard they are driven down. That money is not coming from the financial institutions and hedge funds that got ripped on mortgages. But it is coming from somewhere. We think that somewhere is the land of $90-per-barrel crude and really cheap toys.
Many people will see this as a tilt in global power. When others must invest in the United States, however, they are not the ones with the power; the United States is. To us, it looks far more like the Chinese and Arabs are trapped in a financial system that leaves them few options but to recycle their dollars into the United States. They wind up holding dollars -- or currencies linked to dollars -- and then can speculate by leaving, or they can play it safe by staying. In our view, these two sources of cash are the reason global markets are stable.
Energy prices might fall (indeed, all commodities are inherently cyclic, and oil is no exception), and the amount of free cash flow in the Arabian Peninsula might drop, but there still will be surplus dollars in China as long as it is an export-based economy. Put another way, the international system is producing aggregate return on capital distributed in peculiar ways. Given the size of the U.S. economy and the dynamics of the dollar, much of that money will flow back into the United States. The United States can have its financial crisis. Global forces appear to be stabilizing it.
The Chinese and the Arabs are not in the U.S. markets because they like the United States. They don't. They are locked in. Regardless of the rumors of major shifts, it is hard to see how shifts could occur. It is the irony of the moment that China and the Arabian Peninsula, neither of them particularly fond of the United States, are trapped into stabilizing the United States. And, so far, they are doing a fine job.
So what is going on?
Part of the answer might well be this: For the past five years or so, China has been throwing around huge amounts of cash. The Chinese made big, big money selling overseas -- more than even the growing Chinese economy could metabolize. That led to massive dollar reserves in China and the need for the Chinese to invest outside their own financial markets. Given that the United States is China's primary consumer and the only economy large and stable enough to absorb its reserves, the Chinese -- state and nonstate entities alike -- regard the U.S. markets as safe-havens for their investments. That is one of the things that have kept interest rates relatively low and the equity markets moving. This process of Asian money flowing into U.S. markets goes back to the early 1980s.
Another part of the answer might lie in the self-stabilizing feature of oil prices, the rise of which should be devastating to U.S. markets at first glance. The size of the price surge and the stability of demand have created dollar reserves in oil-exporting countries far in excess of anything that can be absorbed locally. The United Arab Emirates, for example, has made so much money, particularly in 2007, that it has to invest in overseas markets.
In some sense, it doesn't matter where the money goes. Money, like oil, is fungible, which means that if all the petrodollars went into Europe then other money would flow into the United States as European interest rates fell and European stocks rose. But there are always short-term factors to consider. The Persian Gulf oil producers and the Chinese have one thing in common -- they are linked to the dollar. As the dollar declines, assets in other countries become more expensive, particularly if you regard the dollar's fall as ultimately reversible. Dollars invested in dollar-denominated vehicles make sense. Therefore, we are seeing two massive inflows of dollars to the United States -- one from China and one from the energy industry. China's dollar reserves are derived from sales to the United States, so it is stuck in the dollar zone. Plus, the Chinese have pegged the yuan to the dollar. The energy industry, also part of the dollar zone, needs to find a home for its money -- and the largest, most liquid dollar-denominated market in the world is the United States.
The United States has created an odd dollar zone drawing in China and the Persian Gulf. (Other energy producers such as Russia, Nigeria and Venezuela have no problem using their dollars internally.) Unhinging China from the dollar is impossible; it sells in dollars to the United States, a linkage that gives it a stable platform, even if it pays relatively more for oil. Additionally, the Arabian Peninsula sells oil in dollars, and trying to convert those contracts to euros would be mind-bogglingly difficult. Existing contracts and new contracts managed in multiple currencies -- both spot and forward managed -- would have to be renegotiated. Any business working in multiple currencies faces a challenge, and the bigger the business, the bigger the challenge. The Arabian Peninsula accordingly will not be able to hedge currencies and manage the contracts just by flipping a switch.
This provides an explanation for the resiliency of U.S. markets. Every time the news on the subprime situation sounds so horrendous that it seems the U.S. markets will crash, the opposite occurs. In fact, markets in the United States rose through the early days, then sold off and now have rallied again. Where is the money coming from?
We would argue that the money is coming from the dollar bloc and its huge free cash flow from China, and at the moment, the Arabian Peninsula in particular. This influx usually happens anonymously through ordinary market actions, though occasionally it becomes apparent through large, single transactions that are quite open. Last week, for example, Dubai invested $7 billion in Citigroup, helping to clean up the company's balance sheet and, not incidentally, letting it be known that dollars being accumulated in the Persian Gulf will be used to stabilize U.S. markets.
This is not an act of charity. Dubai and the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, as well as China, are holding huge dollar reserves, and the last thing they want to do is sell those dollars in sufficient quantity to drive the dollar's price even lower. Nor do they want to see a financial crisis in the U.S. markets. Both the Chinese and the Arabs have far too much to lose to want such an outcome. So, in an infinite number of open market transactions, as well as occasionally public investments, they are moving to support the U.S. markets, albeit for their own reasons.
It is the only explanation for what we are seeing. The markets should be selling off like crazy, given the financial problems. They are not. They keep bouncing back, no matter how hard they are driven down. That money is not coming from the financial institutions and hedge funds that got ripped on mortgages. But it is coming from somewhere. We think that somewhere is the land of $90-per-barrel crude and really cheap toys.
Many people will see this as a tilt in global power. When others must invest in the United States, however, they are not the ones with the power; the United States is. To us, it looks far more like the Chinese and Arabs are trapped in a financial system that leaves them few options but to recycle their dollars into the United States. They wind up holding dollars -- or currencies linked to dollars -- and then can speculate by leaving, or they can play it safe by staying. In our view, these two sources of cash are the reason global markets are stable.
Energy prices might fall (indeed, all commodities are inherently cyclic, and oil is no exception), and the amount of free cash flow in the Arabian Peninsula might drop, but there still will be surplus dollars in China as long as it is an export-based economy. Put another way, the international system is producing aggregate return on capital distributed in peculiar ways. Given the size of the U.S. economy and the dynamics of the dollar, much of that money will flow back into the United States. The United States can have its financial crisis. Global forces appear to be stabilizing it.
The Chinese and the Arabs are not in the U.S. markets because they like the United States. They don't. They are locked in. Regardless of the rumors of major shifts, it is hard to see how shifts could occur. It is the irony of the moment that China and the Arabian Peninsula, neither of them particularly fond of the United States, are trapped into stabilizing the United States. And, so far, they are doing a fine job.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
Another excellent analysis, much less optimistic (and which also helps explain why the Japanese, with over a trillion in dollar reserves, much more than China at the time, collapsed at the end of the 1980s), of the current financial crisis (whatever would finance capitalism do without a 'crisis'?):
Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park'
As central banks continue to splash their cash over the system, so far to little effect, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues things are rapidly spiralling out of their control
Twenty billion dollars here, $20bn there, and a lush half-trillion from the European Central Bank at give-away rates for Christmas. Buckets of liquidity are being splashed over the North Atlantic banking system, so far with meagre or fleeting effects.
As the credit paralysis stretches through its fifth month, a chorus of economists has begun to warn that the world's central banks are fighting the wrong war, and perhaps risk a policy error of epochal proportions.
"Liquidity doesn't do anything in this situation," says Anna Schwartz, the doyenne of US monetarism and life-time student (with Milton Friedman) of the Great Depression.
"It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt. The banks and the hedge funds have not fully acknowledged who is in trouble. That is the critical issue," she adds.
Lenders are hoarding the cash, shunning peers as if all were sub-prime lepers. Spreads on three-month Euribor and Libor - the interbank rates used to price contracts and Club Med mortgages - are stuck at 80 basis points even after the latest blitz. The monetary screw has tightened by default.
York professor Peter Spencer, chief economist for the ITEM Club, says the global authorities have just weeks to get this right, or trigger disaster.
advertisement"The central banks are rapidly losing control. By not cutting interest rates nearly far enough or fast enough, they are allowing the money markets to dictate policy. We are long past worrying about moral hazard," he says.
"They still have another couple of months before this starts imploding. Things are very unstable and can move incredibly fast. I don't think the central banks are going to make a major policy error, but if they do, this could make 1929 look like a walk in the park," he adds.
The Bank of England knows the risk. Markets director Paul Tucker says the crisis has moved beyond the collapse of mortgage securities, and is now eating into the bedrock of banking capital. "We must try to avoid the vicious circle in which tighter liquidity conditions, lower asset values, impaired capital resources, reduced credit supply, and slower aggregate demand feed back on each other," he says.
New York's Federal Reserve chief Tim Geithner echoed the words, warning of an "adverse self-reinforcing dynamic", banker-speak for a downward spiral. The Fed has broken decades of practice by inviting all US depositary banks to its lending window, bringing dodgy mortgage securities as collateral.
Quietly, insiders are perusing an obscure paper by Fed staffers David Small and Jim Clouse. It explores what can be done under the Federal Reserve Act when all else fails.
Section 13 (3) allows the Fed to take emergency action when banks become "unwilling or very reluctant to provide credit". A vote by five governors can - in "exigent circumstances" - authorise the bank to lend money to anybody, and take upon itself the credit risk. This clause has not been evoked since the Slump.
Yet still the central banks shrink from seriously grasping the rate-cut nettle. Understandably so. They are caught between the Scylla of the debt crunch and the Charybdis of inflation. It is not yet certain which is the more powerful force.
America's headline CPI screamed to 4.3 per cent in November. This may be a rogue figure, the tail effects of an oil, commodity, and food price spike. If so, the Fed missed its chance months ago to prepare the markets for such a case. It is now stymied.
This has eerie echoes of Japan in late-1990, when inflation rose to 4 per cent on a mini price-surge across Asia. As the Bank of Japan fretted about an inflation scare, the country's financial system tipped into the abyss.
In theory, Japan had ample ammo to fight a bust. Interest rates were 6 per cent in February 1990. In reality, the country was engulfed by the tsunami of debt deflation quicker than the bank dared to cut rates. In the end, rates fell to zero. Still it was not enough.
When a credit system implodes, it can feed on itself with lightning speed. Current rates in America (4.25 per cent), Britain (5.5 per cent), and the eurozone (4 per cent) have scope to fall a long way, but this may prove less of a panacea than often assumed. The risk is a Japanese denouement across the Anglo-Saxon world and half Europe.
Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG, said the Fed and allies had scripted a Greek tragedy by under-pricing credit long ago and seem paralysed as post-bubble chickens now come home to roost. "The central banks are trying to dissociate financial problems from the real economy. They are pushing the world nearer and nearer to the edge of depression. We hope they will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to do enough, but time is running out," he said.
Glance at the more or less healthy stock markets in New York, London, and Frankfurt, and you might never know that this debate is raging. Hopes that Middle Eastern and Asian wealth funds will plug every hole lifts spirits.
Glance at the debt markets and you hear a different tale. Not a single junk bond has been issued in Europe since August. Every attempt failed.
Europe's corporate bond issuance fell 66pc in the third quarter to $396bn (BIS data). Emerging market bonds plummeted 75pc.
"The kind of upheaval observed in the international money markets over the past few months has never been witnessed in history," says Thomas Jordan, a Swiss central bank governor.
"The sub-prime mortgage crisis hit a vital nerve of the international financial system," he says.
The market for asset-backed commercial paper - where Europe's lenders from IKB to the German Doctors and Dentists borrowed through Irish-based "conduits" to play US housing debt - has shrunk for 18 weeks in a row. It has shed $404bn or 36pc. As lenders refuse to roll over credit, banks must take these wrecks back on their books. There lies the rub.
Professor Spencer says capital ratios have fallen far below the 8 per cent minimum under Basel rules. "If they can't raise capital, they will have to shrink balance sheets," he said.
Tim Congdon, a banking historian at the London School of Economics, said the rot had seeped through the foundations of British lending.
Average equity capital has fallen to 3.2 per cent (nearer 2.5 per cent sans "goodwill"), compared with 5 per cent seven years ago. "How on earth did the Financial Services Authority let this happen?" he asks.
Worse, changes pushed through by Gordon Brown in 1998 have caused the de facto cash and liquid assets ratio to collapse from post-war levels above 30 per cent to near zero. "Brown hadn't got a clue what he was doing," he says.
The risk for Britain - as property buckles - is a twin banking and fiscal squeeze. The UK budget deficit is already 3 per cent of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle, shockingly out of line with its peers. America looks frugal by comparison.
Maastricht rules may force the Government to raise taxes or slash spending into a recession. This way lies crucifixion. The UK current account deficit was 5.7 per cent of GDP in the second quarter, the highest in half a century. Gordon Brown has disarmed us on every front.
... Continued below ...
Crisis may make 1929 look a 'walk in the park'
As central banks continue to splash their cash over the system, so far to little effect, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard argues things are rapidly spiralling out of their control
Twenty billion dollars here, $20bn there, and a lush half-trillion from the European Central Bank at give-away rates for Christmas. Buckets of liquidity are being splashed over the North Atlantic banking system, so far with meagre or fleeting effects.
As the credit paralysis stretches through its fifth month, a chorus of economists has begun to warn that the world's central banks are fighting the wrong war, and perhaps risk a policy error of epochal proportions.
"Liquidity doesn't do anything in this situation," says Anna Schwartz, the doyenne of US monetarism and life-time student (with Milton Friedman) of the Great Depression.
"It cannot deal with the underlying fear that lots of firms are going bankrupt. The banks and the hedge funds have not fully acknowledged who is in trouble. That is the critical issue," she adds.
Lenders are hoarding the cash, shunning peers as if all were sub-prime lepers. Spreads on three-month Euribor and Libor - the interbank rates used to price contracts and Club Med mortgages - are stuck at 80 basis points even after the latest blitz. The monetary screw has tightened by default.
York professor Peter Spencer, chief economist for the ITEM Club, says the global authorities have just weeks to get this right, or trigger disaster.
advertisement"The central banks are rapidly losing control. By not cutting interest rates nearly far enough or fast enough, they are allowing the money markets to dictate policy. We are long past worrying about moral hazard," he says.
"They still have another couple of months before this starts imploding. Things are very unstable and can move incredibly fast. I don't think the central banks are going to make a major policy error, but if they do, this could make 1929 look like a walk in the park," he adds.
The Bank of England knows the risk. Markets director Paul Tucker says the crisis has moved beyond the collapse of mortgage securities, and is now eating into the bedrock of banking capital. "We must try to avoid the vicious circle in which tighter liquidity conditions, lower asset values, impaired capital resources, reduced credit supply, and slower aggregate demand feed back on each other," he says.
New York's Federal Reserve chief Tim Geithner echoed the words, warning of an "adverse self-reinforcing dynamic", banker-speak for a downward spiral. The Fed has broken decades of practice by inviting all US depositary banks to its lending window, bringing dodgy mortgage securities as collateral.
Quietly, insiders are perusing an obscure paper by Fed staffers David Small and Jim Clouse. It explores what can be done under the Federal Reserve Act when all else fails.
Section 13 (3) allows the Fed to take emergency action when banks become "unwilling or very reluctant to provide credit". A vote by five governors can - in "exigent circumstances" - authorise the bank to lend money to anybody, and take upon itself the credit risk. This clause has not been evoked since the Slump.
Yet still the central banks shrink from seriously grasping the rate-cut nettle. Understandably so. They are caught between the Scylla of the debt crunch and the Charybdis of inflation. It is not yet certain which is the more powerful force.
America's headline CPI screamed to 4.3 per cent in November. This may be a rogue figure, the tail effects of an oil, commodity, and food price spike. If so, the Fed missed its chance months ago to prepare the markets for such a case. It is now stymied.
This has eerie echoes of Japan in late-1990, when inflation rose to 4 per cent on a mini price-surge across Asia. As the Bank of Japan fretted about an inflation scare, the country's financial system tipped into the abyss.
In theory, Japan had ample ammo to fight a bust. Interest rates were 6 per cent in February 1990. In reality, the country was engulfed by the tsunami of debt deflation quicker than the bank dared to cut rates. In the end, rates fell to zero. Still it was not enough.
When a credit system implodes, it can feed on itself with lightning speed. Current rates in America (4.25 per cent), Britain (5.5 per cent), and the eurozone (4 per cent) have scope to fall a long way, but this may prove less of a panacea than often assumed. The risk is a Japanese denouement across the Anglo-Saxon world and half Europe.
Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG, said the Fed and allies had scripted a Greek tragedy by under-pricing credit long ago and seem paralysed as post-bubble chickens now come home to roost. "The central banks are trying to dissociate financial problems from the real economy. They are pushing the world nearer and nearer to the edge of depression. We hope they will eventually be dragged kicking and screaming to do enough, but time is running out," he said.
Glance at the more or less healthy stock markets in New York, London, and Frankfurt, and you might never know that this debate is raging. Hopes that Middle Eastern and Asian wealth funds will plug every hole lifts spirits.
Glance at the debt markets and you hear a different tale. Not a single junk bond has been issued in Europe since August. Every attempt failed.
Europe's corporate bond issuance fell 66pc in the third quarter to $396bn (BIS data). Emerging market bonds plummeted 75pc.
"The kind of upheaval observed in the international money markets over the past few months has never been witnessed in history," says Thomas Jordan, a Swiss central bank governor.
"The sub-prime mortgage crisis hit a vital nerve of the international financial system," he says.
The market for asset-backed commercial paper - where Europe's lenders from IKB to the German Doctors and Dentists borrowed through Irish-based "conduits" to play US housing debt - has shrunk for 18 weeks in a row. It has shed $404bn or 36pc. As lenders refuse to roll over credit, banks must take these wrecks back on their books. There lies the rub.
Professor Spencer says capital ratios have fallen far below the 8 per cent minimum under Basel rules. "If they can't raise capital, they will have to shrink balance sheets," he said.
Tim Congdon, a banking historian at the London School of Economics, said the rot had seeped through the foundations of British lending.
Average equity capital has fallen to 3.2 per cent (nearer 2.5 per cent sans "goodwill"), compared with 5 per cent seven years ago. "How on earth did the Financial Services Authority let this happen?" he asks.
Worse, changes pushed through by Gordon Brown in 1998 have caused the de facto cash and liquid assets ratio to collapse from post-war levels above 30 per cent to near zero. "Brown hadn't got a clue what he was doing," he says.
The risk for Britain - as property buckles - is a twin banking and fiscal squeeze. The UK budget deficit is already 3 per cent of GDP at the peak of the economic cycle, shockingly out of line with its peers. America looks frugal by comparison.
Maastricht rules may force the Government to raise taxes or slash spending into a recession. This way lies crucifixion. The UK current account deficit was 5.7 per cent of GDP in the second quarter, the highest in half a century. Gordon Brown has disarmed us on every front.
... Continued below ...
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
In Europe, the ECB has its own distinct headache. Inflation is 3.1 per cent, the highest since monetary union. This is already enough to set off a political storm in Germany. A Dresdner poll found that 71 per cent of German women want the Deutschmark restored.
With Brünhilde fuming about Brot prices, the ECB has to watch its step. Frankfurt cannot easily cut rates to cushion the blow as housing bubbles pop across southern Europe. It must resort to tricks instead. Hence the half trillion gush last week at rates of 70bp below Euribor, a camouflaged move to help Spain.
The ECB's little secret is that it must never allow a Northern Rock failure in the eurozone because this would expose the reality that there is no EU treasury and no EU lender of last resort behind the system. Would German taxpayers foot the bill for a Spanish bail-out in the way that Kentish men and maids must foot the bill for Newcastle's Rock? Nobody knows. This is where eurozone solidarity stretches to snapping point. It is why the ECB has showered the system with liquidity from day one of this crisis.
advertisementCitigroup, Merrill Lynch, UBS, HSBC and others have stepped forward to reveal their losses. At some point, enough of the dirty linen will be on the line to let markets discern the shape of the debacle. We are not there yet.
Goldman Sachs caused shock last month when it predicted that total crunch losses would reach $500bn, leading to a $2 trillion contraction in lending as bank multiples kick into reverse. This already seems humdrum.
"Our counterparties are telling us that losses may reach $700bn," says Rob McAdie, head of credit at Barclays Capital. Where will it end? The big banks face a further $200bn of defaults in commercial property. On it goes.
The International Monetary Fund still predicts blistering global growth of 5 per cent next year. If so, markets should roar back to life in January, as though the crunch were but a nightmare. There again, the credit soufflé may be hard to raise a second time.
Gordon Brown's Black Wednesday
Antole Kaletsky
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3227927.ece
Once people fully understood that the Government, far from receiving any repayment as part of this “rescue”, will be offering a long-term operating loan to Northern Rock for five years or beyond, the politically embarrassing questions will pour in. If this kind of money is available for a minor bank in Newcastle, what else could the Treasury have done with £55 billion? Here are a few ideas: it could have rescued MG-Rover and turned it into the worlds strongest car manufacturer after Toyota. It could have acquired control of the Airbus programme and shifted its headquarters to Bristol from Toulouse. And even after these industrial subventions there would have been plenty of change from £55 billion to set up a permanent endowment fund to finance Britain's universities, or build a new high-speed rail system covering much of Britain, or a new London airport in the Thames estuary to replace Heathrow or underwrite the entire economic risks of a new generation of nuclear power stations. And what about rescuing the pension funds wrecked by Mr Brown's previous excursions into high finance?
Antole Kaletsky
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/anatole_kaletsky/article3227927.ece
Once people fully understood that the Government, far from receiving any repayment as part of this “rescue”, will be offering a long-term operating loan to Northern Rock for five years or beyond, the politically embarrassing questions will pour in. If this kind of money is available for a minor bank in Newcastle, what else could the Treasury have done with £55 billion? Here are a few ideas: it could have rescued MG-Rover and turned it into the worlds strongest car manufacturer after Toyota. It could have acquired control of the Airbus programme and shifted its headquarters to Bristol from Toulouse. And even after these industrial subventions there would have been plenty of change from £55 billion to set up a permanent endowment fund to finance Britain's universities, or build a new high-speed rail system covering much of Britain, or a new London airport in the Thames estuary to replace Heathrow or underwrite the entire economic risks of a new generation of nuclear power stations. And what about rescuing the pension funds wrecked by Mr Brown's previous excursions into high finance?
vimothy
yurp
The Northern Rock fiasco is practically a dictionary definition of "moral hazard", right?
hucks
Your Message Here
Isn't this what Gek talks about?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/25/banking.france
The guy didn't even make any money for himself. Just caused a load of damage.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/25/banking.france
The guy didn't even make any money for himself. Just caused a load of damage.
IdleRich
IdleRich
This is a fantastic story. Funny how it happens so often.
I used to be a trader and one time I made a cock-up where I hedged some options by selling stock in bp, I was supposed to sell 3700 but I sold 37000. I didn't realise at the time but next day I was in the bath getting ready for work and it suddenly hit me that I would have a discrepancy of about 200k (bp trading around six pounds at the time) in my position. I didn't dare tell anyone at work and sat on that for ages and it was a fucking nightmare watching the price move, firstly down (so I was making money - but was too scared to close it out because someone would notice), then back up. It was pretty worrying 'cause my boss had realised that something wasn't quite balancing in the bp position but he didn't really have time to look into it properly plus the bp position was so big that that was a fairly small error (though not in terms of money of course). I found it pretty stressful anyway and I can only wonder what it would be like to be hiding a billion pound loss - although I guess once it gets to a certain size it stops making any difference how it grows.
I used to be a trader and one time I made a cock-up where I hedged some options by selling stock in bp, I was supposed to sell 3700 but I sold 37000. I didn't realise at the time but next day I was in the bath getting ready for work and it suddenly hit me that I would have a discrepancy of about 200k (bp trading around six pounds at the time) in my position. I didn't dare tell anyone at work and sat on that for ages and it was a fucking nightmare watching the price move, firstly down (so I was making money - but was too scared to close it out because someone would notice), then back up. It was pretty worrying 'cause my boss had realised that something wasn't quite balancing in the bp position but he didn't really have time to look into it properly plus the bp position was so big that that was a fairly small error (though not in terms of money of course). I found it pretty stressful anyway and I can only wonder what it would be like to be hiding a billion pound loss - although I guess once it gets to a certain size it stops making any difference how it grows.
Last edited:
hucks
Your Message Here
I've got a mate who's a trader who told me a similar story to yours - though I think in his case his mistake was to buy when the instruction was to sell. He tried to explain to me that those sort of things weren't as bad as they sounded because they happen all the time and balance each other out. So that's fine.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
Well, with hindsight I should have just bought them back straight away (the second I realised) and owned up - they would probably have just said "ok you fluked twenty grand, don't do it again" - but at the time I simply couldn't. I hated those people and that job - and they hated me.
Anyway, it's an interesting question how much of the market turmoil on Monday was down to this business. My guess is that it may have been the immediate cause but a correction has been coming for a long time.
Anyway, it's an interesting question how much of the market turmoil on Monday was down to this business. My guess is that it may have been the immediate cause but a correction has been coming for a long time.
hucks
Your Message Here
This, though, also from the Guardian
"London markets yesterday recorded the biggest one-day gain in almost five years, wiping out almost all of the heavy losses incurred earlier in the week."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/25/creditcrunch.banking
Maybe the global financial system is more robust than we thought. Or maybe £3.7bn just isn't enough
"London markets yesterday recorded the biggest one-day gain in almost five years, wiping out almost all of the heavy losses incurred earlier in the week."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/25/creditcrunch.banking
Maybe the global financial system is more robust than we thought. Or maybe £3.7bn just isn't enough
hucks
Your Message Here
That appears to be what the traders have concluded, yes. Would they have been able to do so if it was £10bn, or £37bn, though?
So it's the idea, upthread I think, that one person could bring down "the system" with a series of reckless trades. At what stage does one person's actions indicate that there is an underlying problem, or can it always be brushed off in this manner?
So it's the idea, upthread I think, that one person could bring down "the system" with a series of reckless trades. At what stage does one person's actions indicate that there is an underlying problem, or can it always be brushed off in this manner?
jenks
thread death
Isn't the explanation that is being given for Monday a little disengenuous. After all this kind of gives the market that abstraction 'confidence' because they can blame one aberrant person for the big hits everyone took.
Everything is ok really, no looming recession, no house market collapse, no need for base rate cuts - it's all the fault of one french bloke who thought he was going to recoup ever larger debts with ever larger risks.
Also, where has that money gone? Are there a few very wealthy people keeping stumm as they pocket Soc Gen's losses?
Everything is ok really, no looming recession, no house market collapse, no need for base rate cuts - it's all the fault of one french bloke who thought he was going to recoup ever larger debts with ever larger risks.
Also, where has that money gone? Are there a few very wealthy people keeping stumm as they pocket Soc Gen's losses?
IdleRich
IdleRich
I wonder. If it was only one company that had lost it all then maybe although of course the knock-on effects of a large financial institution could be huge. The one that worried everyone was the Long Term scandal in the 90s.
http://www.123compute.net/skate/fundbailprint.html
I reckon so yeah.
If that was the only reason though it makes the Fed look a little hasty with their rate cut doesn't it?
Presumably people or institutions have been pocketing money - whether it's all concentrated in a few hands or (more likely) spread amongst a large number of people we'll probably never know. I mean £3.5 Bn or whatever is a massive blow to one company but split amongst many people it's not so bad. The value of the FTSE fell by £77bn on Monday I think.
vimothy
yurp
IdleRich
IdleRich
Yeah, that's about right. I found the whole job very stressfull pretty much constantly so that was the last thing I needed, all the skin started coming off my fingers and I was ill all the time. What it must be like when you scale that up by a factor of a hundred-thousand or so I can't imagine. The French guy has my sympathy - although it is a brilliant story. I'm just glad I'm not working in that industry now.