Category Archives: financial markets

What I’m Reading

Posted on by

I finished Gregory Clark’s new book. I put it in the must-read category. I hope to publish a review on line in the next few months.

I am now reading Fragile by Design by Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber. I posted a few months ago on an essay they wrote based on the book. I also attended yesterday an “econtalk live,” where Russ Roberts interviewed the authors in front of live audience for a forthcoming podcast. You might look forward to listening–the authors are very articulate and they speak colorfully, e.g. describing the United States as being “founded by troublemakers” who achieved independence through violence, as opposed to the more boring Canadians.

I think it is an outstanding book, although in my opinion it is marred by their focus on CRA lending as a cause of the recent financial crisis. This is a flaw because (a) they might be wrong and (b) even if they are right, they will turn off many potential readers who might otherwise find much to appreciate in the book. Everyone, regardless of ideology, should read the book. It offers a lot of food for thought.

I am only part-way through it. The story as far as I can tell is this:

1. There is a lot of overlap between government and banking. Governments, particularly as territories coalesced into nation states, needed to raise funds for speculative enterprises, such as wars and trading empires. Banks need to enforce contracts, e.g., by taking possession of collateral in the case of a defaulted loan. Government needs the banks, and the banks need government.

2. If the rulers are too powerful, they may not be able to credibly commit to leaving banks assets alone, so it may be hard for banks to form. But if the government is not powerful enough, it cannot credibly commit to enforcing debt contracts, so that it may be hard for banks to form.

3. Think of democracies as leaning either toward liberal or populist. By liberal, the authors mean Madisonian in design, to curb power in all forms. By populist, the authors mean responsive to the will of popular coalitions of what Madison called factions.

4. If you are lucky (as in Canada), your banking policies are grounded in a liberal version of democracy, meaning that the popular will is checked, and regulation serves to implement a stable banking system. If you are unlucky (as in the U.S.), your banking policies are grounded in the populist version of democracy. Banking policy reflects a combination of debtor-friendly interventionism and regulations that favor rent-seeking coalitions who shift burdens to taxpayers. The result is an unstable system.

I may not be stating point 4 in the most persuasive way. I am not yet persuaded by it. In fact, I think libertarians will be at least as troubled as progressives are by some of the theses that the authors promulgate.

A Statistic to Know

Posted on by

Last fall, Jesse Colombo wrote,

it is important to realize that around 50 percent of the SP500’s earnings are generated overseas

This means that our stock market is to some extent decoupled from our economy. Statistics like ratios of corporate profits to GDP are not necessarily going to be indicative of movements in income shares. Imagine a foreign subsidiary getting profits without generating and GDP whatsoever.

Defining a Bubble

Posted on by

Justin Fox writes,

So maybe we should tweak the second sentence of Brunnermaier’s definition, to something like: Bubbles arise if the price far exceeds the asset’s fundamental value, to the point that no plausible future income scenario can justify the price. A little clunky, and of course “plausible” is a judgment call. But it does get at the idea that we shouldn’t be calling every last rise in P/E ratios a bubble.

Pointer from Mark Thoma.

I would tweak this definition back in Shiller’s direction. I think you have to know why people are buying the asset in order to know whether it is a bubble. If investors who are buying the asset have estimates of the discounted present value of the income from that asset that imply a negative real return, then it is a bubble.

To simplify, assume no aggregate inflation. That gets out of the way any difference between real income and nominal income or between real returns and nominal returns.

Suppose that I buy an asset that yields an income stream–rents, dividends, or what have you. Suppose that we discount this income stream at the risk-free rate, and the resulting real return is negative. Why, then, am I buying the asset?

1. Perhaps it has a “negative beta,” so it has tremendous diversification value. Let’s rule that one out.

2. I get utility out of owning the asset. This might apply to jewelry or paintings. Or I could get “extra utility” out of owning my house that is over and above what I save by not having to pay rent. Let’s ignore those cases, also.

3. I expect to be able to sell the asset at a higher price to someone else.

When (3) is the only way to get a positive return from holding the asset, then we have a bubble.

The difference between my definition and Fox’s is that his definition requires that we have an objective definition of “plausible.” Mine requires learning from investors what their estimates are for future income from the asset.

So with something like stocks, you have to know whether the people buying are projecting higher future earnings than what you think are plausible (in which case, no bubble) or whether they are projecting earnings that imply negative rates of return (in which case, bubble).

What is Financial Repression?

Posted on by

Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart are still paying attention to sovereign debt. In fact, there are so many links in this paper to recent work of theirs that surely another book is in the offing. Here, they write,

the current stage often ends with some combination of capital controls, financial repression, inflation, and default. This turn of the pendulum from liberalization back to more heavy-handed regulation stems from both the greater aversion to risk that usually accompanies severe financial crises, including the desire to prevent new ones from emerging, as well as from the desire to maintain interest rates as low as possible to facilitate debt financing. Reinhart and Sbrancia (2011) document how, following World War II (when explicit defaults were limited to the losing side), financial repression via negative real interest rates reduced debt to the tune of 2 to 4 percent a year for the United States, and for the United Kingdom for the years with negative real interest rates. For Italy and Australia, with their higher inflation rates, debt reduction from the financial repression “tax” was on a larger scale and closer to 5 percent per year. As documented in Reinhart (2012), financial repression is well under way in the current post-crisis experience.

(Can anyone find the 2012 paper? It’s not listed in the references.)

Reinhart’s story is that once upon a time, countries emerged from WWII with a lot of sovereign debt. They used financial repression to keep interest rates low, and they got out from under that debt. Then they liberalized, and the financial sectors went crazy, growing rapidly and fueling bubbles. Then the crash came, governments took on a lot of debt again, and now we are back in the cycle of financial repression.

As a story, this is cute. But I cannot buy into it, at least for the United States. Re-read my history of U.S. government debt. Most of the reduction in the ratio of debt to GDP from 1946-1979 was due to the government running primary surpluses in the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s. That is, if you took out interest payments, outlays were below revenues. The negative real interest rates were during the Great Stagflation, and they only reduced the debt/GDP ratio by a small amount.

Also, I am not sure where the financial repression is coming from today. Reinhart cites risk-based capital requirements that favor sovereign debt, but we have had those since before the financial crisis.

I think my larger issue is that I am unclear about the concept of financial repression. Some possibilities.

1. Financial repression consists of regulations that subsidize purchases of government debt and/or penalize risky private investment. In this case, the interest-rate differential between private securities and government securities is wider than normal. How does one distinguish this from a shift in the risk premium due to market psychology?

2. Financial repression reduces the amount of financial intermediation. But what does that mean?

To me, financial intermediation consists of the financial sector holding long-term, risky assets and issuing short-term, risk-free liabilities. The nonfinancial corporate sector and the household sector get to issue long-term, risky liabilities and to hold short-term, risk-free assets. The household sector ultimately owns the equity in the nonfinancial corporate sector and in the financial sector. The government, through deposits insurance and ad hoc bailouts, has in some sense written put options on firms in the financial sector, and as taxpayers we are on the hook for those put options.

If the government comes up with regulations that make it more difficult for the financial sector to expand and exploit its put options, then you might call that financial repression. But in that case, it is not clear that financial repression is a bad thing.

Forecasts for 2014

Posted on by

Politico asks several economists for forecasts. What ensues is mostly ideological axe-grinding. In contrast, Dean Baker plays it straight, and makes an actual forecast.

There is also some serious downside risk in the stock market. Its valuation is definitely high right now, although I wouldn’t necessarily say it is a bubble. Nonetheless, if people are expecting another year of large gains, then they must be smoking something strong. The real story is likely to be with the social media companies. When you have a start-up with no clear business plan, like Snapchat, that can sell for $3 billion, you know things have gotten nutty. Some of these companies will no doubt survive and be profitable, but it takes a lot of profits to justify a $3 billion market cap, to say nothing of the $34 billion for Twitter or $130 billion for Facebook. These prices will come back to earth, and 2014 is as good a year as any for it to happen.

Pointer from Menzie Chinn.

I am nervous about the stock market also. But my main prediction is for increased ideological axe-grinding.

John Cochrane Interview

Posted on by

Self-recommending, but I also read it and recommend it. Tyler and Scott have commented on it already.

if we purge the system of run-prone financial contracts, essentially requiring anything risky to be financed by equity, long-term debt, or contracts that allow suspension of payment without forcing the issuer to bankruptcy, then we won’t have runs, which means we won’t have crises. People will still lose money, as they did in the tech stock crash, but they won’t react by running and forcing needless bankruptcies.

This sounds somewhat radical to me. On the one hand, you want to allow some financial intermediation, which I might define as opaque financial institutions that hold risky, long-term assets and issue riskless short-term liabilities. On the other hand, you don’t want bank runs. What I would like to see are deposit-like contracts in which under certain conditions penalties may be imposed for rapid withdrawals. In the middle of a bank run, you can withdraw your money, but you lose, say 10 cents on the dollar. That sort of contract would have saved AIG, for example. When Goldman and the other firms that held credit defaults swaps written by AIG wanted to make withdrawals (termed “collateral calls”) they would have had to think twice about it. I made this suggestion in real time, back in 2008.

The interview has many great sound bites, but my favorites are these:

I think coming up with new theories to justify policies ex post is a particularly dangerous kind of economics.

and

the need for special savings accounts for medicine, retirement, college, and so on is a sign that the overall tax on saving is too high. Why tax saving heavily and then pass this smorgasbord of complex special deals for tax-free saving? If we just stopped taxing saving, a single “savings account” would suffice for all purposes!

Of course, we are getting a lot of the “particularly dangerous kind of economics” in the wake of TARP and the stimulus. I wish that the new theories were being developed to better account for reality, whether or not they serve to justify policy.

Finally,

Time-varying risk premiums say business cycles are about changes in people’s ability and willingness to bear risk. Yet all of macroeconomics still talks about the level of interest rates, not credit spreads, and about the willingness to substitute consumption over time as opposed to the willingness to bear risk. I don’t mean to criticize macro models. Time-varying risk premiums are just technically hard to model. People didn’t really see the need until the financial crisis slapped them in the face.

I think of Minsky as offering a useful theory of time-varying risk premiums, but that is probably not what John has in mind.

I have not given you all of the good material in the interview, by any means.

Killing Financial Institutions with Kindness

Posted on by

Viral V. Acharya and Bruce Tuckman write,

Well, heck, I can’t copy/paste from the paper. Anyway, they suggest that when the lender of last resort provides funding to firms with illiquid assets, those firms remain too highly levered and actually increase their risk of default. They mention a number of solutions, but it seems to me that Bagehot had yet another–lend freely, but at a penalty rate. If the lender of last resort charges a high interest rate, then the recipient firms have an incentive to sell assets sooner rather than later.

Fun Re-reading

Posted on by

For the macro book that I am working on, I wanted to refresh my memory for how the financial crisis played out. I went back to blog posts that I wrote in 2007. You can find them here. Scroll down to December, and look for posts “subprime daily briefing” (sometimes named slightly differently).

I staked out an early position against bailing our borrowers. I have no regrets there. At one point I said that the total wealth loss from the crisis would not be as large as the loss from popping the dotcom bubble–I think I was wrong about that.

I also staked out an early position in favor of capital forbearance by bank regulators, meaning that they would not force banks to sell assets at distressed prices to meet capital requirements. I still think that compared with what regulators actually did, this was a better approach.

Also interesting are the various links from the posts. For example, I found a paper by Michael Bordo, dated September 28, 2007.

Many of the financial crises of the past involved financial innovation which increased leverage. The 1763 crisis was centered on the market for bills of exchange, Penn Central on the newly revived (in the 1960s) commercial paper market, the savings and loan crisis of the early 1980s on the junk bond market, LTCM on derivatives and hedge funds.

In the most recent episode, the financial innovation derived from the securitization of subprime mortgages and other loans has shifted risk away from the originating bank into mortgage and other asset backed securities which bundle the risk of less stellar borrowers with more creditworthy ones and which were certified by the credit rating agencies as prime . These have been absorbed by hedge funds in the US and abroad, by offshore banks and in the asset backed commercial paper of the commercial and investment banks. As Rajan ( 2005) argued, shifting the risk away from banks who used to have the incentives to monitor their borrowers to hedge funds and other institutions which do not, rather than reducing overall systemic risk increased it by raising the risk of a much more widespread meltdown in theevent of a tail event as we are currently witnessing.

Finance and Macro

Posted on by

Nick Rowe writes,

Here’s a very simple (and totally inadequate) theory of the rate of interest: it is set by the Bank of Canada. Add or subtract adjustments for risk, duration, liquidity, and earnings growth, and you get the equilibrium earnings yield on stocks. Take the reciprocal, and you get the P/E ratio. Done.

Why is that theory totally inadequate? Because the Bank of Canada does not set interest rates in a vacuum. It sets the rate of interest it thinks it needs to set to keep inflation at the 2% target. And that interest rate in turn depends on things like the demand for goods, and the Phillips Curve, and on the inflation target. And the demand for goods in turn depends on things like desired saving and investment, both in Canada and around the world. And those in turn depend on time-preference, and expectations of future income, and on the marginal rates of transformation of present goods into future goods, and whether there will be a demand for those future goods or a recession.

Read the whole thing.

This first paragraph reminds me that I have meant to write an imaginary Q&A with Scott Sumner.

Q: Why did the stock market go up about 2 percent the other day?

SS: Because the Fed announced an expansionary policy.

Q: But the Fed announced that it was tapering its purchases of assets, although they issued a “forward guidance” that interest rates would remain low. Given the somewhat contradictory announcement, how do we know that it was expansionary?

SS: Because the stock market went up about 2 percent.

Nick’s second paragraph reminds us that central bank policy is also endogenous. That is the way that I think of it.

So what’s my explanation for the rise in the market, which was obviously in response to the Fed announcement? A couple of possibilities.

1. Perhaps they read the taper announcement as an indication that the Fed has information that the economy is doing well. They took it as good news.

2. Perhaps a few key Wall Street gurus interpreted the announcement as good news, because of (1) or because they are devoted followers of Scott Sumner or because of the meds they were on or whatever. Then everyone else realized that if the gurus were optimistic then stocks would go up, so they pushed stocks up. It was collective irrationality. As Fischer Black famously said, the stock market is efficient only to a factor of 2.

The way I reconcile finance with macro is that I minimize the weight I give to macro. Markets are happy to let the Fed wiggle around an interest rate or two, as long as it does not wiggle too hard on an interest rate that really matters to the economy. If the Fed were to wiggle too hard on a rate that matters, the markets would find a way around that particular part of the money market in order to make that interest rate matter less. As an economist, your best bet is to treat interest rates and stock prices as determined by financial markets, rationally or otherwise (I vote otherwise), and not by the Fed.

Margin Requirements and Entrance Fees

Posted on by

Tyler Cowen writes,

Imagine that financial institutions and traders have to hold large quantities of T-Bills (and similar assets) to participate in financial markets. That may be to satisfy collateral requirements, to meet government regulations, to be credible in private market transactions, and so on.

Think of what AIG was doing when it was writing credit default swaps on mortgage securities. It was taking tail risk by writing out-of-the-money options. If you believe Gary Gorton, they were fine, except that in 2008 their counterparties demanded collateral that they did not have, not because the options were in the money but because the options were closer to being in the money.

Today, if you want to pick up the nickels that you can earn by taking tail risk, you need to put up more margin. What Tyler is suggesting is that this increases the demand for safe assets relative to what it was prior to 2008. So even if the real return on T-bills is negative, they are worth it for financial institutions who use them to meet margin requirements on trades that enable them to make a profit.

If the financial institution is helping the economy by taking the tail risk, then it’s all fine. But Tyler suggests that the financial institution is not helping the economy (AIG was an enabler of the housing bubble). In that case, we would be better off with less tail-risk taking, which in turn would reduce the demand for safe assets and lead to a better allocation of saving and investment.

Stricter bank regulation may or may not help. The effect of risk-based capital regulations was to increase the demand for AAA-rated securities, which in turn increased the demand for credit default swaps written by AIG. So that was a case in which stricter bank regulation actually created (apparent) profit opportunities in taking tail risk. If regulation still has that effect, then it will increase the fundamental distortion in financial markets.