Greece No Lehman, But Global Strife Brews
Greece No Lehman, But Global Strife Brews
Last week’s panicked trading on world financial markets was eerily reminiscent of the post-Lehman chaos of September 2008. Equity markets plummeted (partly induced by system failure), debt markets froze, inter-bank lending rates skyrocketed and everyone wanted to be at the short end of the curve. Remember when US Treasury bills traded at prices that reflected negative yields?
On Friday last week Australian Government bonds were trading at prices that suggested the next move in rates would be down. That’s not because people actually thought rates will be cut (it’s not out of the question if the economy turns south) but simply because panicked investors were seeking the safe haven of Government bonds and the shortest duration possible.
No doubt the contagion risks are similar. The question is not whether Greece can or cannot pay its debts (without dramatic cuts to government spending, it looks nigh on impossible), but which country is next. With Spain, Portugal and Ireland in the firing line, it’s no wonder banks are reluctant to lend to each other.
When banks stop lending to each other, they also stop lending to customers. We might need another reminder in a decade but for now the events of 2008/9 are fresh in our minds. Dramatic credit contractions can have devastating impacts on the real economy.
This time around, governments and central banks would be running low on ammunition with which to fight another credit crisis. Interest rates are at or near zero (1% in the EU, zero in the US) and governments can hardly rack up even bigger deficits in the current environment, given that is the cause of the problem to begin with. Hence the massive support package announced by Europe’s leaders last night. They cannot let this spiral out of control.
There are, however, three important factors that seem forgotten amongst last week’s equity market collapse. Firstly, the banking system is much better capitalised than it was. A McKinsey report from January this year showed that, thanks to massive recapitalisation efforts, the global banking system ‘had deleveraged to the point at which capital levels were at or above the average levels of the 15 years preceding the crisis’. That gives them less reason to worry about each other and more reason to lend.
Secondly, many listed businesses have themselves raised substantial amounts of capital and bolstered their balance sheets, thus reducing their dependence on the banks.
Finally, US consumers, long the global growth engine, have substantially cut back on debt as a way of financing consumption. In short, the world’s dependence on debt is not what it was when Lehman collapsed. If credit dries up again, I expect the impact on the real economy will be proportionally less. Short-term, this too will pass.
Long-term, this Greek crisis is simply a precursor to the problems the world faces. The Europeans, being European, took their time. But, not surprisingly for students of human nature or politics, they’ve taken the easy option and kicked the can down the road. For more than a decade, Western consumers borrowed too much money, ably assisted by financial institutions creating financial products they themselves didn’t understand. When the consumers couldn’t pay and the banks were about to collapse, governments bailed them out. Remember the calls for ‘a global stimulus package’?
Well, it worked in as far as we’re not looking down the barrel of another Great Depression. Amongst the chaos last week, statisticians announced that the US economy generated an astonishing 290,000 jobs in April.
But the original problem – too much debt – hasn’t gone away. It has just been transferred to government balance sheets. Now, one of those governments can’t meet its obligations. So what do we do? We just transfer the problem onto bigger balance sheets. In this case, they’re the ones owned by the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund.
The buck, however, stops here. Europe and the US are not too big to fail, but they are too big to bail. It is going to hurt but eventually, eventually, the Western world needs to reduce the overall leverage in the system.
The McKinsey report referred to earlier is an insightful analysis of 45 prior episodes of deleveraging, 32 of which followed financial crises (there have been no financial crises in history that have not been followed by a period of deleveraging). The authors identify four ways in which economies can successfully deleverage and no, pass the parcel is not one of them.
The relatively painless option is to grow your way out of debt. Historically, this has been associated with wars (the US during the Second World War) or oil booms (Egypt in the late seventies and Nigeria between 2001 and 2005). Neither of these conditions exist in the US or Europe today (while the US could currently be described as 'at war', expenditure as a percentage of GDP is a fraction of its WWII levels).
The short and painful approach is simply to default on your obligations. Neither the US nor the EU (we might as well view it as one now that the implicit monetary support has become explicit) will default in a traditional sense. Argentina (2002) and Russia (1998) both went down this path in recent times but neither had the luxury of being able to borrow in their own currency. As long as you can print your own money with which to repay debt, you'll never need to default.
That leaves two options: inflation and 'belt tightening'. The latter has been the most common tonic to a bout of indebtedness (16 of the 32 post-crisis deleveraging episodes). This means cutting back on government spending in order to bring spiralling foreign debt balances under control and the result, in all cases, was a substantial reduction in economic growth.
Portugal and Spain, petrified by the Greek experience, have already announced substantial new austerity measures. Both the UK and the US will lose investors' patience if they don't soon show a credible plan for bringing their deficits under control.
The fiscal largesse saved us from a Great Depression, but unwinding the associated deficits is going to result in anaemic economic growth for the next few years at best. Potentially, it could be a drag on economic growth for a decade.
Inflation might seem like a far more palatable solution and, for creditors, there's no doubt it is. Perhaps best described as 'default by stealth', inflation erodes the value of debts and, if you're the supposed recipient of those debts, the value of your assets. It also reduces the value of all other assets in an economy, creates substantial frictional costs and destroys a country's ability to borrow in its own currency again.
It might be the most palatable option for a leveraged electorate, but for investors inflation is a disaster. These two solutions – inflation and belt tightening – or a combination of both will, most likely, be the path chosen by or forced upon the West's leaders. Whichever way it goes, it's a process that will be painful for investors. The Western world needs to reduce the overall leverage in the system.
Finally, lest you think these adjustments have nothing to do with us and our China-fuelled economy, the Greek crisis provides one more important lesson. When countries run massive deficits, they need to get the money from elsewhere.
The only countries that can lend it are those running surpluses. So it was no surprise when the Germans turned up as one of the most substantial Greek bondholders, and stood to lose the most if Greece defaulted on its debts.
The Chinese are probably quite content about the US$2 trillion they've run up in foreign reserves, mostly US treasuries. The austere, hard-working, big-saving Chinese are not to be blamed for US profligacy, they would argue. But they've ended up owning trillions of dollars 'worth' of assets that pay them zero interest and run a very serious risk of being inflated away. It's like selling drugs to a junkie on the promise of an IOU – you have to wonder who's taking advantage of who.
It's in everyone's interests to unwind global trade imbalances and begin the process of Western deleveraging sooner rather than later. I doubt there's the political wherewithal just yet, but a couple more crises might just do the trick.
Custom Search 2

Comments
Excellent piece.We will lurch from crises to crises until the debt problems are adequately addressed
Great post Steve. There's a great tragedy in how governments bailed out bad corporate debts. If the world had of used that money to invest in productive new projects instead - low hanging fruit like a green electricity supply, a decent high speed rail network and perhaps a genuine education revolution - then we'd still have the debts but we'd also have the economic growth that might allow us to grow out of this problem. Bailing out the inefficient has given us all the minuses and few of the pluses. Now we're down to just the two options you've mentioned. But should anyone be surprised - these are government decisions we're talking about.
Fantastic summation Steve!
One interesting point though is that whilst the number of jobs surged 290,000 in the US, the unemployment rate went up from 9.7 to 9.9 per cent! More and more people in the US are now looking for jobs.
In fact, a record 67.2 million Americans have been looking for a job for more than six months! These are incredible numbers and are only going to grow.
In the Intelligent Investor, Ben pointed out that there was no systematic relationship between inflation and stockmarket performance.
Can you remind us which industries are susceptible to inflation over 5 to 10 years? I am thinking retail and retail infrastructure?
Excellent post Steve. Agree 100%.
It seems to be a lessen of history that once countries or Empires have a sustained period of good times that they get lazy and rot from the inside. I see this as the big picture here. Ultimately the riches transfer to other countries
that work hard and live within their means. Probably a fair and just reward.
This reminds me this piece written by Buffett more than 30 years ago...
http://www.valueinvesting.de/en/inflation-equity-investor-by-warren-buff...
Thanks John, I was about to start putting together a piece about the 1970s era and the dramatic impact inflation had on investors' real returns. But this piece is excellent - much better than I could put together - and even more valuable because it was written at the time.
Great piece, Steve.
There is a puzzle that I can't work out in my head. If I understand correctly, the Great Depression in US was exacerbated because the government tightened up too early. It appears if a state tightens up, less money gets into people's pockets, consumers spend less and the economy gets worse. It gets into a vicious cycle. It seems, paradoxically, a state has to borrow more to spend in order to deleverage... Or do I have it backwards? :-/
The government needs to borrow more to spend in order to GROW (or, techinically, sustain the aggregate demand side of the equation). In the short-term this increases the leverage in the system, not decreases it.
The Keynsian theory goes that, once you've avoided the Great Depression scenario, you can use the economic growth to repay the debt. History seems to indicate that the stimulating part is much more palatable than the debt repayment part. Here's a somewhat related piece I wrote last year:
http://iifm.grox.com.au/bristlemouth/the-great-monetary-ponzi-scheme/
Our RBA is intent on letting inflation run away in Australia. The EU, UK and US (and perhaps China?) appear more receptive to the idea of moderate to high inflation.
Would you say the effect of this is to raise the relative value of our dollar to these economies such that our exporters become even more uncompetitive? That such a situation invites ever greater capital inflows that stoke inflationary pressures which must be suppressed by high interest rates (if the RBA continues its present policy) which in turn damage our economic growth?
The same situation applies to the developing countries too, e.g. India.
Warren's 1977 insight into the solutions of high inflation is correct - productivity gains are needed. The developing countries have their poor who can be skilled up, much as China has done.
Where is Australia most likely to achieve productivity gains to remain competitive? It seems to me that the most obvious place to invest in capital are our resources. The current RSPT proposal is not crafted well enough to support this. Our 2-speed economy is a reflection of geography; consider whether this would be a concern if every state drew the same % of its revenue and wealth from mining and energy as WA does at the moment?
Sorry, I should "our RBA is intent on NOT letting inflation run away"
Funny I was about to do the same thing. But I think I'll print out that Warren Buffett piece - and if I then have a burning desire to comment I'll iritate everyone then.
Great piece on the topic from the FT's Gideon Rachman
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8b24504e-5c65-11df-93f6-00144feab49a.html
When I started reading this piece, I was immediately reminded of the 1970s when the USA was bailed out by $Oil. The parallels are uncanny.
As a pre-retiree, I don't know whether to laud or condemn the prospect of high inflation. I know one person who was living off 1970s interest rates well into the 1980s.
Hopefully the volatility will bring on the bargains.
Correction:
What I meant was that I was about to comment, in respone to JohnC. I wasn't about to "start putting together a piece about the 1970s" - I wouldn't claim that my knowledge of economic matters is a shadow of Steve's.
Perhaps I should read things properly before I fire off...
It seems that the financial state of the US and Euro zone is such that sustained high inflation at some point is highly likely.
As the article by Warren Buffett above made clear, many people especially owners of financial assets stand to lose a lot from high inflation. One group in Australia that could conceivably benefit from high inflation provided interest rates don't rise too much are massively overleveraged 'homeowners', and even those with affordable debt that overpaid for their asset.
To its credit the RBA has so far consistently taken a strong stance on inflation and contrary to the approach of the US Fed Glenn Stevens even seemed to suggest that housing assets may be overpriced. The scenario that scares me a bit is if sufficient pressure from the group of overleveraged borrowers could actually cause the RBA to weaken their stand on inflation or even cause Parliament to change the mandate of the RBA to broaden the scope of their mandate to broaden the focus from inflation to 'social cohesion' (or some other double talk for bailing out those that made poor financial decisions). When international debtors are effective bailed out by high inflation, there may be a lot of pressure here for the same treatment. Whilst this is a speculative scenario it is a scary one.
Steve,
Could you cite examples from the McKinsey report that tightening up worked out well? (The McKinsey site requires subscription.)
You should just be able to download it on this page:http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/debt_and_deleveraging/index.asp
I'm not a subscriber.
It's quite interesting, most of the belt tightening examples returned to healthy GDP growth after two years of recession - despite the deleveraging itself lasting for an average of 3 further years. Examples include Finland (90s), Malaysia (98-08) and South Korea (98-00).
Along with belt tightening another action governments can take to pay off debt is to sell assets. Napoleon sold Louisiana, Russia sold Alaska, John Howard sold Telstra, QLD is selling QLD Rail.
So I don't think it is unreasonable that we will see a new wave of privatisations around the world in a decades time. Probably at the same time Macquarie will dust off its old playbook and come knocking on governments door to restart the ultra-geared infrastructure game.... and so the business cycle continues...
Rod I think these jobs will be part of the surge of jobs needed to call on 37 million US households for the 2010 US Census.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/census2010jobs.htm
"The US Census Bureau reports that its main recruitment effort for Census 2010 followup jobs will begin in fall of 2009, with the majority of hiring to take place in the spring of 2010. Census officials say their local and regional offices will need over 3.1 million applicants to work on the post-census, non-response followup operation to take place from late April through July 2010."
The difference b/w Greece and the USA situation is that there is probably nothing worth owning in Greece behind their debt obligation, but there are $50-60 trillion dollars of non cash assets worth owning in the USA (shares/property etc)that can still be swapped for treasuries....why would the Chinese want to give up the current situation, I see business as usual. If there is going to be a near change it will have to be US driven.
There is a fundamental difference in the US bail out vs the EURO one. The US 1 Trillion TARP went to building roads, schools, bridges etc and created jobs. The securities the fed purchased under another funky acronym were at huge discounts to PAR and they profited enormously from buying them at panic lows. The ECB has bought dodgy soverign debt, creating no jobs, and will not profit from the purchases in event of a default - most likely. The austerity measures have not worked so far in greece where they dont or wont pay personal income taxes. So theres a fundamental difference. The worlds reserve central banks have a dilema with all the Euros they have accumulated. Its reasonable if ones livelyhood and life is possibly at stake that one would switch them for gold and USD. And thats my view on why the Euro will go to PAR with the dollar (as will cable) fairly soon and Gold will be very strong. The only time austerity measured have worked historically is when they have been accompanied by monetary policy cuts and a vast fx devaluation, neither of which greece has available to it so default is most probable, or the collapse of the euro as we know it.
Hi JohnC, Just to correct you with CPI data the US EU and UK are NOT "receptive to the idea of moderate to high inflation". The 3 annual rates of core inflation are currently: US 1.1% the lowest rate since 1984 records i can see, EU 1.0% again the lowest rate on records i can see for a long time, UK 3% at the top of the BOEs target band and hardly out of control. The EU and US are struggling to get any sort of inflation level at the bottom of their target bands as consumers reign in their spending so perhaps a non emotive raw facts based approach to stocks should be looking at them in times of record low inflation or deflation. And if inflation became a problem it is really easy to raise rates quickly and get it under control. Cheers
Hi Jono, just to correct you, your highlighting of the latest stats do not contradict long-term policy probabilities. Overleveraged Western economies are receptive to moderate to high inflation - the incentive to do so are obvious, as highlighted by economic commentators as Paul Krugman and Nouriel Roubini. Raising interest rates is historically not "easy to raise quickly and get it under control", particularly in democratic countries with stagnant employment growth under the humongous public debt load being borne by the US, EU and UK. A deflationary cycle ala Japan will be one of the worst outcomes for them. It's naive to smugly extrapolate from the latest data whereas a well-considered anticipation of these governments' long-term policies is much better suited when looking at stocks and asset classes to invest in.
Cheers.
This is a great article but I fear it foretells of a slow decline over the coming decade. I too lived through the 70's and know what happened with inflation. Companies didn't do very well and the only rise was in house prices. The only missing element in the article is what is the best sector for investment with how we ride out what will be a rocky road.
I was about to invest once more in the Stock Market, but in the face of the recent declines, one has to ask where do we see the bottom?
"Inflation might seem like a far more palatable solution and, for creditors, there’s no doubt it is."
I think that you mean "... for debtors it is".
Post new comment