Category Archives: Euro Zone

UK Election Results Capture Political Schism

In under two years since the country stunningly voted to leave the EU, the same electorate shifted yet again and leant away from the idea of a clean break with Europe and threw the whole thing now into chaos. The youngest of voters sided with Labour, who were selling polices in a throw-back to those last seen in the 70s that, if followed, would lead the country to financial ruin. Corbyn’s plan is not even realistic; yet the youngest among us just have no memory of such irresponsibility. Only the old do, and so they voted Conservative.  

Now hostage to a 10-seat minority of the DUP, Theresa May will be saddled with a back-seat driver at negotiations with the EU. Decision making responsibility will not fall to May; she will have to keep ‘calling home’ to get approval.

Worse of all, the result of this election shows how the entire political system is corrupted. We have the worst of both worlds: a disenfranchised and ignorant electorate (e.g. Most of the young) that falls for platitudes and made-up promises. Of course, the left calls such things as false truths or fake news if the right puts such things out.

Britain will now have a much riskier time with Brexit. All we can hope for is a bank run that requires a bail-out or for the IMF to drop Greece ‘in it’ and a run on the Euro. It’s a matter of time. But now we need it sooner rather than 

Advertisements

US Government Sets Up Next Financial Crisis & Brexit Not the Risk at All

Two articles came accross my desk this week – one caused consternation on my part and the other seemed to offer a sanity check.  The former concerned the US economy and specifically how there are signs that consumers, and lenders, are returning to the same behavior that led to the financial crisis at the source or our current economic challenges.  The latter concerned the hype and over blown concern with Brexit and its impact on Britain’s economy.

In the US print editions of the Wall Stree Journal (Wednesday January 11th) there was an article titled, “New Loans, Same Old Dangers“.  This front page article described a government-led initiative (Property Assessed Clean Energy) that provides subsidies loans to encourage homeowners to buy energy saving devices.  The article gives an example of a homeowner who is not able to afford the loan is still encouraged to take it out.  As is common practice this loan is then sliced up with other loans and sold on as a bond – what is called securitization in the financial industry.  This is analogous to the risky mortgage loans offered, and taken up by people who should have known better, and sold on to governments in Iceland as “AAA” opportunities.

The market is very small – the article suggests around $3.4bn of loans have been made so far – but the model is just damning.  FIrst you have big government trying to force its policies on a free market.  With the housing issues that triggered the financial crisis this was Government demanding ever greater home ownership among poor people and those that could not afford it.  Second you have the lowering of standard for the setting up of loans.  This is identical to what happened with dubious sales efforts of mortgage brokers during the 1990’s and early 2000s.  Finally you have the build up of risky loans and owners of the loans not knowing where the real risk is.

The popular uprising that has brought Trump to the White House would do well to heed these stories.  After all people will be people and when offered a bad apple that looks and smells sweet, many will take it.  Perhaps we should not fault those that do – or should we expect a stronger moral aptitude?  Either way we need to get big government out of the way.  It should not seek to foist its social or political wants on you and me – we should be free to do what we want, how we want, when we want, as long as it does not harm our fellow citizen.  Innovation and opportunity will drive improvement in the energy sector.  And perhaps tax credits would be a safer way to encourage small changes in behavior that do not create risky loans.  

The other article, a commentary piece in the US print edition of the Financial Times (Thursday Janary 12th) was titled, “The City has nothing to fear from Brexit“.  It was penned by Stanislas Yassukovich who is a former chief executive officer of European Banking Group.  The article is a breath of fresh air since it refutes many of the risks and issues that most other “specialists” report in the press.  For example we have heard a lot about “passporting” – the idea that a financial institution authorized to trade in one country of the EU can freely trade in another country.  It turns out that non-member states can use this capability quite easily – so it’s not even needed as a negotiation.  The article goes further.

Passporting was a means to try to level set the complexities of rules across what was meant to be a single market.  It turns out that even with passporting there remains complex and different rules that still need to accommodated when trading across the member-states.  As such, “core retail financial activities – residential mortgages, deposit and savings products and so on – remain almost entirely national, and highly protected.”   This whole think stinks to me.  

The recent news that PM Thresa May fired her senior most civil servant who worke with the EU was greeted in the press as bad news.  It seems he kept repeating to the PM that it was not going to be possible to complete all negotiations in time before the two year window closed for leaving the EU.  Why is this?  He may have had a practical view on things but he certainly did not have a positive view on what is possible.  I think we need clean out the cupboard and get a fresh new look at everything.  Good for PM May to do so.  If the author of this article is right, there is little we should fear from Brexit.   

The Home Owners/Renters Market is Upside Down

Two articles today suggest that two of the world’s largest economies are swapping roles and focus for home ownership and renting. Germany has been a nation of renters; home ownership has run at relatively low levels compared to the UK or US. The US has operated under the assumption that home ownership is central to the American Dream.

As we all now know, policies adopted by the US government in the 1980s led to a relaxation of requirements for those seeking a mortgage and low income, even zero-income families, obtained mortgages they could never afford. The result, when combined with human greed both by home buyers and the investment community, led to the financial crisis that is the cause of the situation we are in today: near zero interest rates and massive influx of quantitive easing that has filled the coffers of the investor class.

But what is happening now? It seems that the near zero interest rates in Germany are driving record levels of home ownership and low interest rates in the US is driving up demand for rental property with record low-levels of home ownership. The world is turning upside down!

In the US print edition of the Financial Times, the article, “German’s switch to home ownership fuels bubble fears“, reports that house prices are rising as demand for mortgages continues to rise. The good news is that many of these new mortgages are fixed rate plans- which protects home owners as interest rates increase.  Germany has been a relative laggard when it comes to home ownership. See Most Germans don’t buy their homes: Theey rent.  Here’s why.  

In the US print edition of the Wall Street Journal, in an article, “Millennials Fuel House Rental Boom“, we hear of the later boom afflicting the US market. It turns out that US home ownership is at record lows, yet house prices around the country are recovering and in some regions, back to pre-crisis levels. How can this be?   Turns out that firms flush with cash and low cost loans have been buying up property in the cheap and renting them. The article above goes even further and explains how firms are now increasing investing in entirely new property developments specifically for the rental market.  

This all might alarm you. The American Dream, perhaps western democracy, was assumed to be predicated on home ownership. But this is not the case. The German economy has done very well with relatively low home ownership rates. The US might have to learn from the Germans how to run such an economy; likewise the Germans need to take a leaf out of the US’ books to avoid bubble blow-out.  

But in all practical terms we should be alarmed. Germany is an export-based economy. Other counties want (or need) to buy Germany’s products. Exports from the US is vastly less of a proportion of it’s GDP than it is for Germany. So there is little room for the US to behave more like Germany. Additionally Germany cannot set its own interest rates; even now the stresses between the EU center and periphery are growing again. Greece, Spain and Italy continue to need low interest rates to help nurture their local economies to recovery. Germany, never near a recession, is showing signs of too rapid growth (and growing inflation) and may approach overheating before the periphery is even back to positive growth.  

Bottom line: zero interest rates and quantitive easing (and resulting central bank balance sheet ballooning) is changing our economic foundations. This will impact our societies in ways it is hard to predict. Hang on guys, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride!

My Top 5 Biggest New Year Risks to the Global Economy

In order or scale, priority and impact, here are my picks for the five most critical trigger-points that may impact, negatively, a return to ‘old normal’. Currently we stand at the edifice of a new normal, the great stagflation, but the anti-establishment and populist changes taking place seem to suggest a knew-jerk reaction by nations fed up with socialist dressed-up-as-market politics that have led the West for 20 years.

  1. China’s economy stagnates or crashes. Debt levels are above EM levels and are now among the largest, approaching the incredulous Japanese levels. This dynamic is not sustainable for a nation whose currency is not a reserve currency. However the economy is the world second largest even without the development and emergence of whole swathes of other sectors such as healthcare and leisure, which may offset contracting first world growth over the next year or two. So the risk is there and there is no clear leaning one way or the other, yet. But debt is growing faster than these new sectors; exchange reserves at $3bn are limited (though huge), and currency value management is not market-bases. So greater risk is with the downside. China’s growth flags, currency sinks, counterbalancing US growth and confidence, creating a massive imbalance in the global economy. Europe watches on as global GDP sinks under its own debt weight. KPI’s to avoid/watch out for: China GDP falls to or below 4.5%; China’s debt load surpasses 300% of GDP.
  2. Trump quits after 18 months due to intractable political limitations that prevent policy changes he seeks related to healthcare, regulatory complexity, tax reform and trade. Trump’s political rhetoric is being replaced with solid business-based policy. However not all such policies have ever been tested at a national level and scale. Some efforts will fall foul to physical, social and political limitations. This may prove frustrating for Trump. As growth will return short term, such medium term frustration will lead Trump to claim, “My policies worked, see? But now the system has reached its limit and there is nothing I can do until the country agrees with me to shut down the whole government system! Since they are not ready, yet, I am ‘outa here’ until they are!” Markets crash, interest rates balloon, inflation rages all within a year. World economy sinks into the abyss. KPI’s to avoid/watch out for: US GDP 1H 2017 reaches 4.5% but Congressional conflict leads to policy deadlock ; vacancy in position at Whitehouse. 
  3. Emerging Marker currency crisis as massed capital investment is siphoned away towards a resurgent US economy and dominant dollar, as well as a stable and even growing China economy. This situation is already underway. The risk is that what is currently a reasonably ordered trend becomes a financial route. This is possible since the financial markets are starved of yield due to the collective policies of central banks to keep interest rates very low for too long and for the build up in their massive balance sheets. If the trend becomes a torrent, EM’s will have to yank up interest rates far beyond what their local economics can support and economic disaster will follow. This will ferment more political instability and drive increased destabilizing ebonies to ruin. Though the US may be growing well, compared to its peers, it’s the imbalance they tips the ship over. KPI’s to avoid/watch out for: dollar index, the weighted value against basket of currencies, surpasses 115. It is currently at 103.33, which is a 14 year high; EM interest rate differential balloons.
  4. Hard Brexit forced through by intransigent Europeans who think the EU experiment is more about political union than economic liberalism. A new trade deal, legal framework and social contract can be negotiated within a two year window. But only if politicians and civil servants want it too. Continental politicians however, under the strain from populist pressures, will equate intransigence over Brexit negotiations with an improved politicos standing with their electorates. Fool for them as this will actually create the opposite response for such behavior will simply worsen the economic climate. The lack of any sign of return to old normal will lead to political paralysis and the clock will time-out. Hard Brexit will be forced upon a supplicant Britian. Europe and UK economies will tank; currency wars will wage; global trade will collapse further. This will not sunk the global economy short term but will act as a dead weight slowing its resurgence down. KPI’s to avoid/watch out for: no agreement at end of two year period lost triggering of Article 50. 
  5. Latin or Indian debt or economic crisis. Much like with other EM’s, growing sectors of significant size around the world may blow up- India being the best example. India’s growth is different to China. It is more integrated socially and politically with the west, but it’s corruption levels are far greater than what one can see or observe in China. It is possible that local economic difficulties, hard to observe today, may trigger a collapse in confidence that leads to a destabilizing debt or currency crisis. Brazil’s economy is certainly in the dock currently; Argentina is struggling. India’s economy looks like paradise right now but the growth across the country is extremely uneven- you only have to look at public sector infrastructure investment. So should two such countries suffer local difficulties, the combination may result in significant risk to the global financial system. KPI’s to avoid/watch out for: two simultaneous financial/debt crisis afflicting EM or India.

These are my top 5 risks the global economy faces in 2017. I hope I am wide of the mark, in a positive way. I left Japan off the top 5 list yet their economy remains anathema to growth. The Japanese market invented the whole new normal cycle with a anaemic growth, massive debt, low inflation, and demographic contraction. And Japan has an amazing debt load that refuses to spook investors. Things may yet have a Japanese tinge before the year end. Does Japan, along with the US, lead the global economy back to the old normal!
What potential risks do you see?

Open Letter to Mario Draghi: Wake Up!

December 6, 2016 

Sir,

I am in receipt of a copy of the transcript of your recent a speech, “The Productivity Challenge for Europe”. I have to report that your paper makes little sense and completely avoids the negative impact that your policies, as head of the ECB, have had in holding the EU’s economy back.

But before I identify the errors in your analysis I need to first highlight how your initial assumptions, outlined in the first part of the speech, are presented backwards. Here are several of your assumptions:

  • “Stronger potential output growth aids monetary policy by increasing the equilibrium real interest rate.”

Sir, this is self evident. However it is the interest rate policy of the ECB that has stifled risk and investment that can drive growth. It is not growth that aids policy; it is policy that should be creating opportunity for growth.  
Now the second backward facing assumption:

  • “And higher future growth helps monetary policy today. It encourages households to spend more and firms to invest, reducing the need for monetary policy to support current economic activity and bring inflation back towards 2%, and speeding up the return to more conventional monetary policy settings.”

This is similar to the first item; it is not growth that affords a monetary policy; it is monetary policy that should be assuring growth. You are clearly looking at the real world backwards. This will again become clear as we look and analyze your prescription to the problem of lack of growth.

The main body of your speech calls out correctly the cause of the stagnant euro productivity figure. You correctly call out capital investment and efficient allocation of resources (to the more productive) as the challenges facing us today. And supporting both of these is, ultimately, the diffusion of innovation across the region and non-frontier firms (I too read the OECD paper).

However sir, I see a weakness in your monetary policy. Firms are not sitting on their hands with a bunch of ‘shovel-ready-strategies’ waiting for the right interest rate level before launching one. Firms have strategies, first and foremost, independent of interest rate. Some of those strategies require funding and at that time, the firms’ treasurer or CFO will compare the range of funding options available.

You see sir, you have only to ask company treasurers and CFOs how they use interest rates to realize that perpetually low or even negative interest rates are anathema to growth. They are killing our economy.

As to resource allocation, well, since the capital markets are massively distorted is it any wonder that internal company allocation methods are screwed up too? With quantitative easing and the vast sums of money sloshing around the community, it turns out that companies were and are able to alter short-term ‘strategies’ to leverage it all. They simply launched non-natural M&A (at an all time high) and stock buy-backs that meet EPS targets more easily than riskier long term capital investments.

You do touch on several other polices that would positively impact rates of diffusion of innovation, namely:

  • Fostering more competition 
  • Well functioning capital, product and labor markets 

Alas the very polices you and your kind seek and set are preventing the realization of these polices:

  1. There is reduced competition due to excessive regulation and tax policies that favor established and larger firms over smaller and new
  2. Capital markets are being massively distorted as explained above
  3. Product markets are held hostage to, again, red tape and too much government involvement
  4. Labor markets are held back due to the same nanny-state efforts

Sir, I implore you to look at the data in front of you. Meet with twenty CFOs. Get out a little bit and talk to real people and put your books of theory away. I beseech you- before you bring the whole edifice of the EU down.

I have the pleasure of being, sir, your obedient servant.

A. White

Italy’s ‘No’ to Renzi is Not Like Brexit or Trump – They are all Different

It suits the press, a machinery that is benefited by the establishment, to associate Sunday’s referendum results in Italy as a rejection of establishment and so a similar vote as Brexit and then Trump. This is incorrect and a disservice to Italy.
Look at Renzi’s polices:

  • Less regulation
  • Increased labor flexibility
  • Lower taxes

As such he is as much Trump as he is Cameron or a May. And Renzi is pro-Italy and not so keen to follow along with rules set by Brussles designed to favor the Euro at one’s own expense. So on paper the result is akin to what happened in the UK and US. But let’s look at the data in more detail.

Brexit was not even a fair vote. Maybe none are but it really was an extreme case of bait and switch. The politics excelled over economics; and yet even if you looked at the facts, a vote for Brexit didn’t lead to the imminent disaster sworn by leaders at the time.  In fact, if one understands the situation of the euro, it was a smart move.  

But all the rhetoric concerning immigration turned the vote into a sham. Thus the UK voted for the right outcome but for the wrong reason.
Trump was, to that point, the first and real anti-disestablishment vote, pure and simple. It so happens that it seemed to look like Brexit which happened to appear as a vote against orthodoxy. But Trump’s victory was no fluke whereas Brexit was. The Trump underpinnings to victory were seeded long ago by a mutual debasement of the political class by left, and right, in the US.

Renzi’s referendum is a vote by Italy to remain Italian and avoid changing the political class system. The very constraints that lead to a stagnant economy and political system with uneven distribution of wealth was maintained. This was therefore not a vote against the establishment at all. It was a successful defense of it. Yes, the right-wing anti-EU Beppa Grillo party gains, but that is a by-product of the actual referendum structure due to Renzi foolishly linking his position to the result and is subsequent decision to resign. Even the Economist questioned the whole structure of the referendum last week.  

In today’s US print edition of the Wall Street Journal someone from an Italian lobby and public affairs group Pedesta is quoted as saying that “The antiestablishment feeling is stronger than the desire to reform.” This is classic Italian as it is jargon. Antiestablishment is about reform, massive reform. So establishment was thus assured! He goes on, “There is a reluctance to change, an innate conservatism in Italy.” Italy is not conservative; such policies have just been rejected.  

The other thing that happened was that Renzi was marginally pro-EU and he suggested that his polices would help Italy and so help the EU. He also foolishly tied his position to Sunday’s results, as if his own popularity was enough to sway the establishment. It was not. So his announced resignation opens the door for disruption and even the comedian-cum-politician. But it is not as if Italian’s were voting against Renzi. They were voting to protect the status-quo.

France’s and Germany’s elections are different. They either may undo the EU at a strike. If either in-office party looses to an extreme left or right, we might end up with a whole new ball game. 2016 may have been the unscrewing of Pandora’s lid. 2017 could well be the opening up of it.
And don’t think Greece is out of the picture. More loans are coming/needed yet some counties have already said no more. See Greece, Creditors Get Back on a Collison Course.

   

Should Britain Now Write Its Constitution?

This week’s read of the economist was not overly happy for me. See previous blog: Worst Week Reading The Economist. But the newspaper still shines when it avoids writing about Trump.

In Baghot: The Machine Splitters; Unsexy as it may seem, Britain needs a big constitutional debate, the paper argues convincingly for a real written constitution.

Britain of course has no written constitution. It has many laws and documents but over the years a series of conditions emerged that resulted in no expect need for it. The article highlights the three conditions:

  • Consensus among the country’s rulers about certain enduring traditions
  • A population willing to defer to the elite’s application and interpretation of those traditions
  • A steady, incremental evolution of those traditions rather than sudden, violent shocks

The country has been lucky in that is has not experienced such shocks for a long time. However Brexit is a big one. The paper argues it is big enough to warrant the debate. I agree.  

The problem is that there is no president to call on to guide how Britain extricates itself from Europe. It certainly got its way into Europe with creeping incrementalism, launching the whole affair itself after World War II. But the effort to join was not painless, and its efforts (twice foiled by de Galle) coincided with the demise of empire and decoupling of commonwealth. Such a long-winded process resulted in tight links without the need for a constitution. Getting out of it, inside 2 years, is a whole different ball game. At least we don’t have de Gaulle snooping around.