United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities, Threatening Risk Premium on United States Government Debt, Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation, United States Housing Collapse, World Financial Turbulence and Economic Slowdown with Global Recession Risk
Carlos M. Pelaez
© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2010, 2011, 2012
Executive Summary
IA United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities
IA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy
IA2 Functions of Banks
IA3 United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities
IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation
II United States Housing Collapse
IIA United States New House Sales
IIB United States House Prices
IIC Factors of United States Housing Collapse
III World Financial Turbulence
IIIA Financial Risks
IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk
IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation
IV Global Inflation
V World Economic Slowdown
VA United States
VB Japan
VC China
VD Euro Area
VE Germany
VF France
VG Italy
VH United Kingdom
VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets
VII Economic Indicators
VIII Interest Rates
IX Conclusion
References
Appendixes
Appendix I The Great Inflation
IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies
IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact
IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort
IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis
IIIGA Monetary Policy with Deficit Financing of Economic Growth
IIIGB Adjustment during
Executive Summary
ESI Threatening Risk Premium on United States Government Debt
ESII Theory and Reality of Deflation and Monetary Policy
ESIII United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities
ESI Threatening Risk Premium on United States Government Debt. Table ESI-1 provides federal debt outstanding, held by government accounts and held by the public in millions of dollars for fiscal years from 2007 to 2012. Federal debt outstanding has increased 78.2 percent from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year 2012 while federal debt held by the public has increased 122.8 percent and federal debt held by government accounts has increased 21.1 percent.
Table ESI-1, US, Federal Debt Outstanding, Held by Government Accounts and Held by the Public, Millions of Dollars
| Outstanding | Held by Government Accounts | Held by the Public | |
| 2012 Sep | 16,090,640 | 4,791,850 | 11,298,790 |
| Fiscal Years | |||
| 2012 | 16,090,640 | 4,791,850 | 11,298,790 |
| 2011 | 14,815,328 | 4,658,307 | 10,157,021 |
| 2010 | 13,585,596 | 4,534,014 | 9,051,582 |
| 2009 | 11,933,031 | 4,355,291 | 7,577,739 |
| 2008 | 10,047,828 | 4,210,491 | 5,837,337 |
| 2007 | 9,030,612 | 3,958,417 | 5,072,195 |
| ∆% 2007-2012 | 78.2 | 21.1 | 122.8 |
Source: United States Treasury. 2012Dec. Treasury Bulletin. Washington, DC, Dec 2012. https://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html
Table ESI-2 provides the maturity distribution and average length in months of marketable interest-bearing debt held by private investors from 2007 to Sep 2012. Total debt held by investors increased from $3635 billion in 2007 to $9040 billion in Sep 2012 or increase by 148.7 percent. There are two concerns with the maturity distribution of US debt. (1) Growth of debt is moving total debt to the point of saturation in investors’ portfolio. In a new environment of risk appetite and nonzero fed funds rates with economic growth at historical trend of around 3 percent, yields on risk financial assets are likely to increase. Placement of new debt may require increasing interest rates in an environment of continuing placement of debt by the US Treasury without strong fiscal constraints. (2) Refinancing of maturing debt is likely to occur in an environment of higher interest rates, exerting pressure on future fiscal budgets. In Sep 2012, $2897 billion or 32.1 percent of outstanding debt held by investors matures in less than a year and $3852 billion or 42.6 percent of total debt matures in one to five years. Debt maturing in five years or less adds to $6749 billion or 74.7 percent of total outstanding debt held by investors of $9040 billion. This historical episode may be remembered as one in which the US managed its government debt with short-dated instruments during record low long-dated yields and on the verge of fiscal pressures on all interest rates, which kind of maximizes over time interest payments on government debt by taxpayers that is precisely the opposite of the objective of sound debt management and taxpayer welfare.
Table ESI-2, Maturity Distribution and Average Length in Months of Marketable Interest-Bearing Public Debt Held by Private Investors, Billions of Dollars
| End of Fiscal Year or Month | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | Sep 2012 |
| Total* | 3635 | 4745 | 6229 | 7676 | 7951 | 9040 | 9040 |
| <1 Year | 1176 | 2042 | 2605 | 2480 | 2504 | 2897 | 2897 |
| 1-5 Years | 1310 | 1468 | 2075 | 2956 | 3085 | 3852 | 3852 |
| 5-10 Years | 678 | 719 | 995 | 1529 | 1544 | 1488 | 1488 |
| 10-20 Years | 292 | 352 | 351 | 341 | 309 | 271 | 271 |
| >20 Years | 178 | 163 | 204 | 371 | 510 | 533 | 533 |
| Average | 58 | 49 | 49 | 57 | 60 | 55 | 55 |
*Amount Outstanding Privately Held
Source: United States Treasury. 2012Dec. Treasury Bulletin. Washington, DC, Dec 2012. https://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html
Table ESI-3 provides additional information required for understanding the deficit/debt situation of the United States. The table is divided into three parts: federal fiscal data for the years from 2009 to 2012; federal fiscal data for the years from 2005 to 2008; and Treasury debt held by the public from 2005 to 2012. Total revenues of the US from 2009 to 2012 accumulate to $9019 billion, or $9.0 trillion, while expenditures or outlays accumulate to $14,111 billion, or $14.1 trillion, with the deficit accumulating to $5092 billion, or $5.1 trillion. Revenues decreased 6.6 percent from $9653 billion in the four years from 2005 to 2008 to $9019 billion in the years from 2009 to 2012. Decreasing revenues were caused by the global recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) and also by growth of only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012, which is much lower than 6.2 percent on average in cyclical expansions since the 1950s (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states_24.html). Weakness of growth and employment creation is analyzed in the following Subsection IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation. There are 28.6 million people without jobs or underemployed that is equivalent to 17.7 percent of the US effective labor force (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html) and hiring is significantly below the earlier cyclical expansion before 2007 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/recovery-without-hiring-forecast-growth.html). In contrast with the decline of revenue, outlays or expenditures increased 30.2 percent from $10,839 billion, or $10.8 trillion, in the four years from 2005 to 2008, to $14,111 billion, or $14.1 trillion, in the four years from 2009 to 2012. Increase in expenditures by 30.2 percent while revenue declined by 6.6 percent caused the increase in the federal deficit from $1186 billion in 2005-2008 to $5092 billion in 2009-2012. Federal revenue was 15.4 percent of GDP on average in the years from 2009 to 2012, which is well below 18.0 percent of GDP on average from 1970 to 2010. Federal outlays were 24.1 percent of GDP on average from 2009 to 2012, which is well above 21.9 percent of GDP on average from 1970 to 2010. The lower part of Table ESI-3 shows that debt held by the public swelled from $5803 billion in 2008 to $11,280 billion in 2012, by $5477 billion or 94.3 percent. Debt held by the public as percent of GDP or economic activity jumped from 40.5 percent in 2008 to 72.6 percent in 2012, which is well above the average of 37.0 percent from 1970 to 2010. The United States faces tough adjustment because growth is unlikely to recover, creating limits on what can be obtained by increasing revenues, while continuing stress of social programs restricts what can be obtained by reducing expenditures.
Table ESI-3, US, Treasury Budget and Debt Held by the Public, Billions of Dollars and Percent of GDP
| Receipts | Outlays | Deficit (-), Surplus (+) | |
| $ Billions | |||
| 2012 | 2,449 | 3,538 | -1,089 |
| Fiscal Year 2011 | 2,302 | 3,599 | -1,297 |
| Fiscal Year 2010 | 2,163 | 3,456 | -1,293 |
| Fiscal Year 2009 | 2,105 | 3,518 | -1,413 |
| Total 2009-2012 | 9,019 | 14,111 | -5,092 |
| Average % GDP 2009-2012 | 15.4 | 24.1 | -8.7 |
| Fiscal Year 2008 | 2,524 | 2,983 | -459 |
| Fiscal Year 2007 | 2,568 | 2,729 | -161 |
| Fiscal Year 2006 | 2,407 | 2,655 | -248 |
| Fiscal Year 2005 | 2,154 | 2,472 | -318 |
| Total 2005-2008 | 9,653 | 10,839 | -1,186 |
| Average % GDP 2005-2008 | 17.9 | 20.1 | -2.2 |
| Debt Held by the Public | Billions of Dollars | Percent of GDP | |
| 2005 | 4,592 | 36.9 | |
| 2006 | 4,829 | 36.6 | |
| 2007 | 5,035 | 36.3 | |
| 2008 | 5,803 | 40.5 | |
| 2009 | 7,545 | 54.1 | |
| 2010 | 9,019 | 62.8 | |
| 2011 | 10,128 | 67.7 | |
| 2012 | 11,280 | 72.6 |
Source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html CBO (2012NovMBR). CBO (2011AugBEO); Office of Management and Budget. 2011. Historical Tables. Budget of the US Government Fiscal Year 2011. Washington, DC: OMB; CBO. 2011JanBEO. Budget and Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, Jan. CBO. 2012AugBEO. Budget and Economic Outlook. Washington, DC, Aug 22. CBO. 2012Jan31. Historical budget data. Washington, DC, Jan 31. CBO. 2012NovCDR. Choices for deficit reduction. Washington, DC. Nov.
The CBO (2012NovCDR, 4) uses different assumptions to calculate what would happen with the US budget and debt under an alternative fiscal scenario of no measures of fiscal tightening:
“The alternative fiscal scenario incorporates the assumptions that all expiring tax provisions (other than the payroll tax reduction), including those that expired at the end of December 2011, are instead extended; that the alternative minimum tax is indexed for inflation after 2011 (starting at the 2011 exemption amount); that Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services are held constant at their current level; and that the automatic enforcement procedures specified by the Budget Control Act of 2011 do not take effect. Outlays under that scenario also include the incremental interest costs associated with projected additional borrowing.”
Table ESI-4 provides the projections of the alternative fiscal scenario of the CBO under those assumptions. Debt as percent of GDP increases from 72.6 percent in 2012 to 89.7 percent in 2022.
Table ESI-4, US, Alternative Scenario CBO Projections of Federal Government Revenues, Outlays, Deficit and Debt as Percent of GDP
| Revenues | Outlays | Deficit | Debt | |
| 2011 | 15.4 | 24.1 | -8.7 | 67.7 |
| 2012 | 15.8 | 22.8 | -7.0 | 72.6 |
| 2013 | 16.3 | 22.8 | -6.5 | 78.6 |
| 2014 | 17.2 | 22.9 | -5.6 | 82.3 |
| 2015 | 17.8 | 22.5 | -4.6 | 82.5 |
| 2016 | 18.1 | 22.6 | -4.5 | 82.5 |
| 2017 | 18.3 | 22.5 | -4.2 | 82.5 |
| 2018 | 18.3 | 22.5 | -4.2 | 82.9 |
| 2019 | 18.4 | 23.0 | -4.6 | 84.1 |
| 2020 | 18.5 | 23.3 | -4.8 | 85.7 |
| 2021 | 18.5 | 23.6 | -5.1 | 87.5 |
| 2022 | 18.6 | 24.1 | -5.5 | 89.7 |
| Total 2013-2017 | 17.6 | 22.6 | -5.0 | NA |
| Total 2013-2022 | 18.1 | 23.0 | -4.9 | NA |
| Average | 18.0 | 21.9 | NA | 37.0 |
Source: CBO (2012AugBEO). CBO (2012NovCDR).
The major hurdle in adjusting the fiscal situation of the US is shown in Table ESI-5 in terms of the rigid structure of revenues that can be increased and outlays that can be reduced. There is no painless adjustment of a debt exceeding 70 percent of GDP. On the side of revenues, taxes provide 90.9 percent of revenue in 2011 and are projected to provide 92.2 percent in the total revenues from 2013 to 2022 in the CBO projections. Thus, revenue measures are a misleading term for what are actually tax increases. The choices are especially difficult because of the risks of balancing inequity and disincentives to economic activity. Individual income taxes are projected to increase from 47.4 percent of federal government revenues in 2011 to 51.4 percent in total revenues projected by the CBO from 2013 to 2022. There are equally difficult conflicts in what the government gives away in a rigid structure of expenditures. Mandatory expenditures account for 56.3 percent of federal government outlays in 2011 and are projected to increase to 62.4 percent of the total projected by the CBO for the years 2013 to 2022. The total of Social Security plus Medicare and Medicaid accounts for 43.4 percent of federal government outlays in 2011 and is projected to increase to 51.5 percent in the total for 2013 to 2022. The inflexibility of what to cut is more evident in the first to the last row of Table ESI-5 with the aggregate of defense plus Social Security plus Medicare plus Medicaid accounting for 62.7 percent of expenditures in 2011, rising to 66.6 percent of the total outlays projected by the CBO from 2013 to 2022. The cuts are in discretionary spending that declines from 37.4 percent of the total in 2011 to 28.9 percent of total outlays in the CBO projection for 2013 to 2022.
Table ESI-5, Structure of Federal Government Revenues and Outlays, $ Billions and Percent
| 2011 | % Total | Total 2013-2022 | % Total | |
| Revenues | 2,303 | 100.00 | 41,565 | 100.00 |
| Individual Income Taxes | 1,091 | 47.4 | 21,379 | 51.4 |
| Social Insurance Taxes | 819 | 35.6 | 12,476 | 30.0 |
| Corporate Income Taxes | 181 | 7.9 | 4,477 | 10.8 |
| Other | 212 | 9.2 | 3,232 | 7.8 |
| Outlays | 3,603 | 100.00 | 43,823 | 100.0 |
| Mandatory | 2,027 | 56.3 | 27,324 | 62.4 |
| Social Security | 725 | 20.1 | 10,545 | 24.1 |
| Medicare | 560 | 15.5 | 7,722 | 17.6 |
| Medicaid | 275 | 7.6 | 4,291 | 9.8 |
| SS + Medicare + Medicaid | 1,560 | 43.3 | 22,558 | 51.5 |
| Discre- | 1,346 | 37.4 | 12,664 | 28.9 |
| Defense | 700 | 19.4 | 6,726 | 15.4 |
| Non- | 646 | 17.9 | 5,370 | 12.3 |
| Net Interest | 230 | 6.4 | 3,835 | 8.8 |
| Defense + SS + Medicare + Medicaid | 2,260 | 62.7 | 29,284 | 66.8 |
| MEMO: GDP | 15,076 | 217,200 |
Source: CBO (2012JanBEO), CBO (2012AugBeo).
Chart ESI-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the yield of the ten-year constant maturity Treasury from Jan 3, 1977 to Dec 26, 2012. The yield stood at 7.67 percent on Feb 16, 1977. A peak was reached at 15.21 percent on Oct 26, 1981 during the inflation control effort by the Fed. There is a second local peak in Chart ESI-1 on May 3, 1984 at 13.94 percent followed by another local peak at 8.14 percent on Nov 21, 1994 during another inflation control effort (see Appendix I The Great Inflation). There was sharp reduction of the yields from 5.44 percent on Apr 1, 2002 until they reached a low point of 3.13 percent on Jun 13, 2003. Yields rose again to 4.89 percent on Jun 14, 2004 and 5.23 percent on Jul 5, 2006. Yields declined sharply during the financial crisis, reaching 2.08 percent on Dec 18, 2008, lowered by higher prices originating in sharply increasing demand in the flight to the US dollar and obligations of the US government. Yields rose again to 4.01 percent on Apr 5, 2010 but collapsed to 2.41 percent on Oct 8, 2010 because of higher demand originating in the flight from the European sovereign risk event. During higher risk appetite, yields rose to 3.75 percent on Feb 8, 2011 and collapsed to 1.74 percent on Dec 26, 2012, which is the last data point in Chart ESI-1. There has been a trend of decline of yields with oscillations. During periods of risk aversion investors seek protection in obligations of the US government, causing decline in their yields. In an eventual resolution of international financial risks with higher economic growth there could be the trauma of rising yields with significant capital losses in portfolios of government securities. The data in Table VI-7 in the text is obtained from closing dates in New York published by the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata).
Chart ESI-1, US, Ten-Year Treasury Constant Maturity Yield, Jan 3, 1977 to Dec 26, 2012
Note: US Recessions in Shaded Areas
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/
Chart ESI-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides securities held outright by Federal Reserve banks from 2002 to 2012. The first data point in Chart ESI-2 is the level for Dec 18, 2002 of $629,407 million and the final data point in Chart ESI-2 is level of $2,660,271 million on Dec 26, 2012.
Chart ESI-2, US, Securities Held Outright by Federal Reserve Banks, Wednesday Level, Dec 26, 2002 to Dec 26, 2012, USD Millions
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/bst_fedsbalancesheet.htm
Chart ESI-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the ten-year, two-year and one-month Treasury constant maturity yields. The beginning yields in Chart ESI-3 for July 31, 2000, are 3.67 percent for one month, 3.79 percent for two years and 5.07 percent for ten years. On July 31, 2007, yields inverted with the one month at 5.13 percent, the two-year at 4.56 percent and the ten year at 5.13 percent. During the beginning of the flight from risk financial assets to US government securities (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009), the one-month yield was 0.07 percent, the two-year yield1.64 percent and the ten-year yield 3.41. The combination of zero fed funds rate and quantitative easing caused sharp decline of the yields from 2008 and 2009. Yield declines have also occurred during periods of financial risk aversion, including the current one of stress of financial markets in Europe. The final point of Chart ESI-3 is for Dec 27, 2012, with the one-month yield at 0.01 percent, the two-year at 0.26 percent and the ten-year at 1.74 percent.
Chart ESI-3, US, Ten-Year, Two-Year and One-Month Treasury Constant Maturity Yields Jul 31, 2001-Dec 27, 2012
Note: US Recessions in shaded areas
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/
Chart ESI-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the overnight Fed funds rate on business days from Jan 3, 1979, at 8.34 percent per year, to Dec 27, 2012, at 0.17 percent per year. US recessions are in shaded areas according to the reference dates of the NBER (http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). In the Fed effort to control the “Great Inflation” of the 1930s (see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I The Great Inflation; see Taylor 1993, 1997, 1998LB, 1999, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB and http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html), the fed funds rate increased from 8.34 percent on Jan 3, 1979 to a high in Chart ESI-4 of 22.36 percent per year on Jul 22, 1981 with collateral adverse effects in the form of impaired savings and loans associations in the United States, emerging market debt and money-center banks (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 72-7; Pelaez 1986, 1987). Another episode in Chart ESI-4 is the increase in the fed funds rate from 3.15 percent on Jan 3, 1994, to 6.56 percent on Dec 21, 1994, which also had collateral effects in impairing emerging market debt in Mexico and Argentina and bank balance sheets in a world bust of fixed income markets during pursuit by central banks of non-existing inflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 113-5). Another interesting policy impulse is the reduction of the fed funds rate from 7.03 percent on Jul 3, 2000, to 1.00 percent on Jun 22, 2004, in pursuit of equally non-existing deflation (Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-85), followed by increments of 25 basis points from Jun 2004 to Jun 2006, raising the fed funds rate to 5.25 percent on Jul 3, 2006 in Chart ESI-4. Central bank commitment to maintain the fed funds rate at 1.00 percent induced adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMS) linked to the fed funds rate. Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment but the exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at interest rates close to zero, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV).
The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper with the objective of purchasing default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because the put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4). A final episode in ESI-4 is the reduction of the fed funds rate from 5.41 percent on Aug 9, 2007, to 2.97 percent on October 7, 2008, to 0.12 percent on Dec 5, 2008 and close to zero throughout a long period with the final point at 0.17 percent on Dec 27, 2012. Evidently, this behavior of policy would not have occurred had there been theory, measurements and forecasts to avoid these violent oscillations that are clearly detrimental to economic growth and prosperity without inflation. Current policy consists of forecast mandate of maintaining policy accommodation until the forecast of the rate of unemployment reaches 6.5 percent and the rate of personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy reaches 2.5 percent (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm). It is a forecast mandate because of the lags in effect of monetary policy impulses on income and prices (Romer and Romer 2004). The intention is to reduce unemployment close to the “natural rate” (Friedman 1968, Phelps 1968) of around 5 percent and inflation at or below 2.0 percent. If forecasts were reasonably accurate, there would not be policy errors. A commonly analyzed risk of zero interest rates is the occurrence of unintended inflation that could precipitate an increase in interest rates similar to the Himalayan rise of the fed funds rate from 8.34 percent on Jan 3, 1979, at the beginning point in Chart ESI-4, to 22.36 percent on Jul 22, 1981. There is a less commonly analyzed risk of the development of a risk premium on Treasury securities because of the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). There is not a fiscal cliff ahead but rather free fall into a fiscal abyss. The combination of the fiscal abyss with zero interest rates could trigger the risk premium on Treasury debt or Himalayan hike in interest rates.
Chart ESI-4, US, Fed Funds Rate, Business Days, Jan 3, 1979 to Dec 27, 2012, Percent per Year
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/
There is a false impression of the existence of a monetary policy “science,” measurements and forecasting with which to steer the economy into “prosperity without inflation.” Market participants are remembering the Great Bond Crash of 1994 shown in Table ESI-6 when monetary policy pursued nonexistent inflation, causing trillions of dollars of losses in fixed income worldwide while increasing the fed funds rate from 3 percent in Jan 1994 to 6 percent in Dec. The exercise in Table ESI-6 shows a drop of the price of the 30-year bond by 18.1 percent and of the 10-year bond by 14.1 percent. CPI inflation remained almost the same and there is no valid counterfactual that inflation would have been higher without monetary policy tightening because of the long lag in effect of monetary policy on inflation (see Culbertson 1960, 1961, Friedman 1961, Batini and Nelson 2002, Romer and Romer 2004). The pursuit of nonexistent deflation during the past ten years has resulted in the largest monetary policy accommodation in history that created the 2007 financial market crash and global recession and is currently preventing smoother recovery while creating another financial crash in the future. The issue is not whether there should be a central bank and monetary policy but rather whether policy accommodation in doses from zero interest rates to trillions of dollars in the fed balance sheet endangers economic stability.
Table ESI-6, Fed Funds Rates, Thirty and Ten Year Treasury Yields and Prices, 30-Year Mortgage Rates and 12-month CPI Inflation 1994
| 1994 | FF | 30Y | 30P | 10Y | 10P | MOR | CPI |
| Jan | 3.00 | 6.29 | 100 | 5.75 | 100 | 7.06 | 2.52 |
| Feb | 3.25 | 6.49 | 97.37 | 5.97 | 98.36 | 7.15 | 2.51 |
| Mar | 3.50 | 6.91 | 92.19 | 6.48 | 94.69 | 7.68 | 2.51 |
| Apr | 3.75 | 7.27 | 88.10 | 6.97 | 91.32 | 8.32 | 2.36 |
| May | 4.25 | 7.41 | 86.59 | 7.18 | 88.93 | 8.60 | 2.29 |
| Jun | 4.25 | 7.40 | 86.69 | 7.10 | 90.45 | 8.40 | 2.49 |
| Jul | 4.25 | 7.58 | 84.81 | 7.30 | 89.14 | 8.61 | 2.77 |
| Aug | 4.75 | 7.49 | 85.74 | 7.24 | 89.53 | 8.51 | 2.69 |
| Sep | 4.75 | 7.71 | 83.49 | 7.46 | 88.10 | 8.64 | 2.96 |
| Oct | 4.75 | 7.94 | 81.23 | 7.74 | 86.33 | 8.93 | 2.61 |
| Nov | 5.50 | 8.08 | 79.90 | 7.96 | 84.96 | 9.17 | 2.67 |
| Dec | 6.00 | 7.87 | 81.91 | 7.81 | 85.89 | 9.20 | 2.67 |
Notes: FF: fed funds rate; 30Y: yield of 30-year Treasury; 30P: price of 30-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 6.29 percent and maturity in exactly 30 years; 10Y: yield of 10-year Treasury; 10P: price of 10-year Treasury assuming coupon equal to 5.75 percent and maturity in exactly 10 years; MOR: 30-year mortgage; CPI: percent change of CPI in 12 months
Sources: yields and mortgage rates http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm CPI ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.t
In their classic work on “unpleasant monetarist arithmetic,” Sargent and Wallace (1981, 2) consider a regime of domination of monetary policy by fiscal policy (emphasis added):
“Imagine that fiscal policy dominates monetary policy. The fiscal authority independently sets its budgets, announcing all current and future deficits and surpluses and thus determining the amount of revenue that must be raised through bond sales and seignorage. Under this second coordination scheme, the monetary authority faces the constraints imposed by the demand for government bonds, for it must try to finance with seignorage any discrepancy between the revenue demanded by the fiscal authority and the amount of bonds that can be sold to the public. Suppose that the demand for government bonds implies an interest rate on bonds greater than the economy’s rate of growth. Then if the fiscal authority runs deficits, the monetary authority is unable to control either the growth rate of the monetary base or inflation forever. If the principal and interest due on these additional bonds are raised by selling still more bonds, so as to continue to hold down the growth of base money, then, because the interest rate on bonds is greater than the economy’s growth rate, the real stock of bonds will growth faster than the size of the economy. This cannot go on forever, since the demand for bonds places an upper limit on the stock of bonds relative to the size of the economy. Once that limit is reached, the principal and interest due on the bonds already sold to fight inflation must be financed, at least in part, by seignorage, requiring the creation of additional base money.”
The alternative fiscal scenario of the CBO (2012NovCDR) resembles an economic world in which eventually the placement of debt reaches a limit of what is proportionately desired of US debt in investment portfolios. This unpleasant environment is occurring in various European countries.
The current real value of government debt plus monetary liabilities depends on the expected discounted values of future primary surpluses or difference between tax revenue and government expenditure excluding interest payments (Cochrane 2011Jan, 27, equation (16)). There is a point when adverse expectations about the capacity of the government to generate primary surpluses to honor its obligations can result in increases in interest rates on government debt.
This analysis suggests that there may be a point of saturation of demand for United States financial liabilities without an increase in interest rates on Treasury securities. A risk premium may develop on US debt. Such premium is not apparent currently because of distressed conditions in the world economy and international financial system. Risk premiums are observed in the spread of bonds of highly indebted countries in Europe relative to bonds of the government of Germany.
The issue of global imbalances centered on the possibility of a disorderly correction (Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b) 183-94, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 167-71). Such a correction has not occurred historically but there is no argument proving that it could not occur. The need for a correction would originate in unsustainable large and growing United States current account deficits (CAD) and net international investment position (NIIP) or excess of financial liabilities of the US held by foreigners net of financial liabilities of foreigners held by US residents. The IMF estimated that the US could maintain a CAD of two to three percent of GDP without major problems (Rajan 2004). The threat of disorderly correction is summarized by Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 15):
“It is possible that foreigners may be unwilling to increase their positions in US financial assets at prevailing interest rates. An exit out of the dollar could cause major devaluation of the dollar. The depreciation of the dollar would cause inflation in the US, leading to increases in American interest rates. There would be an increase in mortgage rates followed by deterioration of real estate values. The IMF has simulated that such an adjustment would cause a decline in the rate of growth of US GDP to 0.5 percent over several years. The decline of demand in the US by four percentage points over several years would result in a world recession because the weakness in Europe and Japan could not compensate for the collapse of American demand. The probability of occurrence of an abrupt adjustment is unknown. However, the adverse effects are quite high, at least hypothetically, to warrant concern.”
The United States could be moving toward a situation typical of heavily indebted countries, requiring fiscal adjustment and increases in productivity to become more competitive internationally. The CAD and NIIP of the United States are not observed in full deterioration because the economy is well below potential. There are two complications in the current environment relative to the concern with disorderly correction in the first half of the past decade. Table ESI-7 provides data on the US fiscal and balance of payments imbalances. In 2007, the federal deficit of the US was $161 billion corresponding to 1.2 percent of GDP while the Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2012NovCDR) estimates the federal deficit in 2012 at $1089 billion or 7.7 percent of GDP (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/08/expanding-bank-cash-and-deposits-with.html). The combined record federal deficits of the US from 2009 to 2012 are $5092 billion or 33 percent of the estimate of GDP of $15,538 billion for fiscal year 2012 by the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43542 2012AugBEO). The deficits from 2009 to 2012 exceed one trillion dollars per year, adding to $5092 trillion in four years, using the fiscal year deficit of $1089.4 billion for fiscal year 2012 (http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.txt), which is the worst fiscal performance since World War II. Federal debt in 2007 was $5035 billion, less than the combined deficits from 2009 to 2012 of $5092 billion. Federal debt in 2011 was 67.7 percent of GDP and is estimated to reach 72.6 percent of GDP in 2012 (CBO2012AugBEO, CBO2012NovCDR). This situation may worsen in the future (CBO 2012LTBO):
“The budget outlook is much bleaker under the extended alternative fiscal scenario, which maintains what some analysts might consider “current policies,” as opposed to current laws. Federal debt would grow rapidly from its already high level, exceeding 90 percent of GDP in 2022. After that, the growing imbalance between revenues and spending, combined with spiraling interest payments, would swiftly push debt to higher and higher levels. Debt as a share of GDP would exceed its historical peak of 109 percent by 2026, and it would approach 200 percent in 2037.
The changes under this scenario would result in much lower revenues than would occur under the extended baseline scenario because almost all expiring tax provisions are assumed to be extended through 2022 (with the exception of the current reduction in the payroll tax rate for Social Security). After 2022, revenues under this scenario are assumed to remain at their 2022 level of 18.5 percent of GDP, just above the average of the past 40 years.
Outlays would be much higher than under the other scenario. This scenario incorporates assumptions that through 2022, lawmakers will act to prevent Medicare’s payment rates for physicians from declining; that after 2022, lawmakers will not allow various restraints on the growth of Medicare costs and health insurance subsidies to exert their full effect; and that the automatic reductions in spending required by the Budget Control Act of 2011 will not occur (although the original caps on discretionary appropriations in that law are assumed to remain in place). Finally, under this scenario, federal spending as a percentage of GDP for activities other than Social Security, the major health care programs, and interest payments is assumed to return to its average level during the past two decades, rather than fall significantly below that level, as it does under the extended baseline scenario.”
Table ESI-7, US, Current Account, NIIP, Fiscal Balance, Nominal GDP, Federal Debt and Direct Investment, Dollar Billions and %
| 2000 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |
| Goods & | -377 | -697 | -698 | -379 | -495 | -559 |
| Income | 19 | 101 | 147 | 119 | 184 | 227 |
| UT | -58 | -115 | -126 | -122 | -131 | -133 |
| Current Account | -416 | -710 | -677 | -382 | -442 | -466 |
| NGDP | 9951 | 14028 | 14291 | 13974 | 14499 | 15076 |
| Current Account % GDP | -3.8 | -5.1 | -4.7 | -2.7 | -3.1 | -3.1 |
| NIIP | -1337 | -1796 | -3260 | -2321 | -2474 | -4030 |
| US Owned Assets Abroad | 6239 | 18399 | 19464 | 18512 | 20298 | 21132 |
| Foreign Owned Assets in US | 7576 | 20195 | 22724 | 20833 | 22772 | 25162 |
| NIIP % GDP | -13.4 | -12.8 | -22.8 | -16.6 | -17.1 | 26.7 |
| Exports | 1425 | 2488 | 2657 | 2181 | 2519 | 2848 |
| NIIP % | -94 | -72 | -123 | -106 | -98 | -142 |
| DIA MV | 2694 | 5274 | 3102 | 4287 | 4767 | 4450 |
| DIUS MV | 2783 | 3551 | 2486 | 2995 | 3397 | 3509 |
| Fiscal Balance | +236 | -161 | -459 | -1413 | -1294 | -1297 |
| Fiscal Balance % GDP | +2.4 | -1.2 | -3.2 | -10.1 | -9.0 | -8.7 |
| Federal Debt | 3410 | 5035 | 5803 | 7545 | 9019 | 10128 |
| Federal Debt % GDP | 34.7 | 36.3 | 40.5 | 54.1 | 62.8 | 67.7 |
| Federal Outlays | 1789 | 2729 | 2983 | 3518 | 3456 | 3603 |
| ∆% | 5.1 | 2.8 | 9.3 | 17.9 | -1.8 | 4.3 |
| % GDP | 18.2 | 19.7 | 20.8 | 25.2 | 24.1 | 24.1 |
| Federal Revenue | 2052 | 2568 | 2524 | 2105 | 2162 | 2302 |
| ∆% | 10.8 | 6.7 | -1.7 | -16.6 | 2.7 | 6.5 |
| % GDP | 20.6 | 18.5 | 17.6 | 15.1 | 15.1 | 15.4 |
Sources:
Notes: UT: unilateral transfers; NGDP: nominal GDP or in current dollars; NIIP: Net International Investment Position; DIA MV: US Direct Investment Abroad at Market Value; DIUS MV: Direct Investment in the US at Market Value. There are minor discrepancies in the decimal point of percentages of GDP between the balance of payments data and federal debt, outlays, revenue and deficits in which the original number of the CBO source is maintained. These discrepancies do not alter conclusions.
Sources: Balance of Payments and NIIP, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) http://www.bea.gov/international/index.htm#bop
Gross Domestic Product, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
Budget, Congressional Budget Office http://www.cbo.gov/
ESII Theory and Reality of Deflation and Monetary Policy. Unconventional monetary policy of zero interest rates and quantitative easing has been used in Japan and now also in the US. Table ESII-1 provides the consumer price index of Japan, with inflation of minus 0.2 percent in 12 months ending in Nov, increase of minus 0.4 percent NSA (not-seasonally-adjusted) in Nov and increase of 0.1 percent SA (seasonally-adjusted) in the month of Nov. Inflation of consumer prices in the first four months of 2012 annualizes at 2.1 percent SA and 3.0 percent NSA. Annual equivalent inflation in the first three months of 2012 is 2.8 percent SA and 3.7 percent NSA. There are negative percentage changes in most of the 12-month rates in 2011 with the exception of Jul and Aug both with 0.2 percent and stability in Sep. All monthly and 12-month rates of inflation are nonnegative in the first four months of 2012. There are eight years of deflation and one of zero inflation in the 12-month rate of inflation in Dec from 1995 to 2010. This experience is entirely different from that of the US that shows long-term inflation. It is difficult to justify unconventional monetary policy because of risks of deflation similar to that experienced in Japan. Fear of deflation as had occurred during the Great Depression and in Japan was used as an argument for the first round of unconventional monetary policy with 1 percent interest rates from Jun 2003 to Jun 2004 and quantitative easing in the form of withdrawal of supply of 30-year securities by suspension of the auction of 30-year Treasury bonds with the intention of reducing mortgage rates. For fear of deflation see Pelaez and Pelaez, International Financial Architecture (2005), 18-28, and Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 83-95. The financial crisis and global recession were caused by interest rate and housing subsidies and affordability policies that encouraged high leverage and risks, low liquidity and unsound credit (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-66, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 217-27, International Financial Architecture (2005), 15-18, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II (2008b), 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization (2008c), 182-4). Several past comments of this blog elaborate on these arguments, among which: http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/professor-mckinnons-bubble-economy.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/world-inflation-quantitative-easing.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/treasury-yields-valuation-of-risk.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/quantitative-easing-theory-evidence-and.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-fed-printing-money-what-are.html
Table ESII-1, Japan, Consumer Price Index, All Items ∆%
| ∆% Month SA | ∆% Month NSA | ∆% 12-Month NSA | |
| Nov 2012 | 0.1 | -0.4 | -0.2 |
| Oct | -0.2 | 0.0 | -0.4 |
| Sep | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.3 |
| Aug | -0.2 | 0.1 | -0.4 |
| Jul | 0.0 | -0.3 | -0.4 |
| Jun | -0.4 | -0.5 | -0.2 |
| May | -0.4 | -0.3 | 0.2 |
| Apr | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.4 |
| Mar | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Feb | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Jan | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Dec 2011 | 0.1 | 0.0 | -0.2 |
| Nov | -0.1 | -0.6 | -0.5 |
| Oct | 0.0 | 0.1 | -0.2 |
| Sep | -0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Aug | -0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Jul | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
| Jun | -0.1 | -0.2 | -0.4 |
| May | -0.1 | 0.0 | -0.4 |
| Apr | -0.1 | 0.1 | -0.4 |
| Mar | 0.0 | 0.3 | -0.5 |
| Feb | 0.1 | 0.0 | -0.5 |
| Jan | 0.0 | -0.1 | -0.6 |
| Dec 2010 | -0.2 | –0.3 | 0.0 |
| Dec 2009 | -1.7 | ||
| Dec 2008 | 0.4 | ||
| Dec 2007 | 0.7 | ||
| Dec 2006 | 0.3 | ||
| Dec 2005 | -0.1 | ||
| Dec 2004 | 0.2 | ||
| Dec 2003 | -0.4 | ||
| Dec 2002 | -0.3 | ||
| Dec 2001 | -1.2 | ||
| Dec 2000 | -0.2 | ||
| Dec 1999 | -1.1 | ||
| Dec 1998 | 0.6 | ||
| Dec 1997 | 1.8 | ||
| Dec 1996 | 0.6 | ||
| Dec 1995 | -0.3 | ||
| Dec 1994 | 0.7 | ||
| Dec 1993 | 1.0 | ||
| Dec 1992 | 1.2 | ||
| Dec 1991 | 2.7 | ||
| Dec 1990 | 3.8 | ||
| Dec 1989 | 2.6 | ||
| Dec 1988 | 1.0 | ||
| Dec 1987 | 0.8 | ||
| Dec 1986 | -0.3 | ||
| Dec 1985 | 1.9 | ||
| Dec 1984 | 2.6 | ||
| Dec 1983 | 1.7 | ||
| Dec 1982 | 2.0 | ||
| Dec 1981 | 4.3 | ||
| Dec 1980 | 6.9 | ||
| Dec 1979 | 5.6 | ||
| Dec 1978 | 3.9 | ||
| Dec 1977 | 5.0 | ||
| Dec 1976 | 10.5 | ||
| Dec 1975 | 7.8 | ||
| Dec 1974 | 21.0 | ||
| Dec 1973 | 18.3 | ||
| Dec 1972 | 5.7 | ||
| Dec 1971 | 4.8 |
Source: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/cpi/1581.htm
Chart ESII-1 of the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan provides the consumer price index for all items and regions of Japan monthly from 1971 to 2012 with 2010=100. There was inflation in Japan during the 1970s and 1980s similar to other countries and regions. The index shows stability after the 1990s with sporadic cases of deflation. Slower growth with sporadic inflation has been characterized as a “lost decade” in Japan (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 82-115).
Chart ESII-1, Japan, Consumer Price Index All Items, All Japan, Index 2010=100, Monthly, 1970-2012
Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/cpi/1581.htm
Chart ESII-2 provides the US consumer price index NSA from 1913 to 2012. The dominating characteristic is the increase in slope during the Great Inflation from the middle of the 1960s through the 1970s. There is long-term inflation in the US and no evidence of deflation risks.
Chart IV-2, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, NSA, 1913-2012
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm
Chart ESII-3 of the Statistics Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index for all items and regions of Japan monthly from 1971 to 2012. Japan experienced the same inflation waves of the United States during the Great Inflation of the 1970s followed by similar low inflation after the inflation-control increase of interest rates in the early 1980s. Numerous cases of negative inflation or deflation are observed after the 1990s.
Chart ESII-3, Japan, CPI All Items, All Japan, 12-Month ∆%, 1971-2012
Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/cpi/1581.htm
Chart ESII-4 provides 12-month percentage changes of the US consumer price index from 1914 to 2012. There are actually three waves of inflation in the second half of the 1960s, in the mid 1970s and again in the late 1970s. Table ESII-1 provides similar inflation waves in the economy of Japan with 18.3 percent in 1973 and 21.0 percent in 1974. The Great Inflation of the 1970s is analyzed in various comments of this blog (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html) and in Appendix I. Inflation rates then stabilized in the US in a range with only two episodes above 5 percent. There are isolated cases of deflation concentrated over extended periods only during the 1930s. There is no case in United States economic history for unconventional monetary policy because of fear of deflation. There are cases of long-term deflation without lost decades or depressions. Delfim Netto (1958) partly reprinted in Pelaez (1973) conducted two classical nonparametric tests (Mann 1945, Wallis and Moore 1941; see Kendall and Stuart 1968) with coffee-price data in the period of free markets from 1857 to 1906 with the following conclusions (Pelaez, 1976a, 280):
“First, the null hypothesis of no trend was accepted with high confidence; secondly, the null hypothesis of no oscillation was rejected also with high confidence. Consequently, in the nineteenth century international prices of coffee fluctuated but without long-run trend. This statistical fact refutes the extreme argument of structural weakness of the coffee trade.”
The conventional theory that the terms of trade of Brazil deteriorated over the long term is without reality (Pelaez 1976a, 280-281):
“Moreover, physical exports of coffee by Brazil increased at the high average rate of 3.5 per cent per year. Brazil's exchange receipts from coffee-exporting in sterling increased at the average rate of 3.5 per cent per year and receipts in domestic currency at 4.5 per cent per year. Great Britain supplied nearly all the imports of the coffee economy. In the period of the free coffee market, British export prices declined at the rate of 0.5 per cent per year. Thus, the income terms of trade of the coffee economy improved at the relatively satisfactory average rate of 4.0 per cent per year. This is only a lower bound of the rate of improvement of the terms of trade. While the quality of coffee remained relatively constant, the quality of manufactured products improved significantly during the fifty-year period considered. The trade data and the non-parametric tests refute conclusively the long-run hypothesis. The valid historical fact is that the tropical export economy of Brazil experienced an opportunity of absorbing rapidly increasing quantities of manufactures from the "workshop" countries. Therefore, the coffee trade constituted a golden opportunity for modernization in nineteenth-century Brazil.”
Imlah (1958) provides decline of British export prices at 0.5 percent in the nineteenth century and there were no lost decades, depressions or unconventional monetary policies in the highly dynamic economy of England that provided the world’s growth impulse.
Chart ESII-4, US, Consumer Price Index, All Items, NSA, 12-Month Percentage Change 1914-2012
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm
Chart ESII-5 provides the US consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1957 (when it first becomes available) to 2012. There is long-term inflation in the US without episodes of deflation that would justify symmetric inflation targets to increase inflation from low levels.
ESII-5, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, NSA, 1957-2012
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm
Chart ESII-6 provides 12-month percentage changes of the consumer price index excluding food and energy from 1958 (when it first becomes available) to 2012. There are three waves of inflation in the 1970s during the Great Inflation. There is no episode of deflation.
Chart ESII-6, US, Consumer Price Index Excluding Food and Energy, 12-Month Percentage Change, NSA, 1958-2012
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics
http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm
More detail on the consumer price index of Japan in Nov is shown in Table ESII-2. Inflation in the 12 months ending in Nov 2012 has been driven by items rich in commodities such as 3.1 percent in fuel, light and water charges with decrease of 0.3 percent in the month of Nov. There is similar behavior in the preliminary estimate for Dec for the Ku Area of Tokyo with decrease of 0.3 percent of fuel, light and water charges and increase of 5.4 percent in 12 months. There is no increase in any items in the consumer price index in Nov. There is mild deflation in the CPI excluding food, alcoholic beverages and energy with minus 0.5 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov and minus 0.3 percent in Nov. The CPI excluding imputed rent fell 0.4 percent in Nov and decreased 0.1 percent in 12 months. The all-items CPI estimate for Dec of the Ku-Area of Tokyo was unchanged in Dec and declined 0.6 percent in 12 months.
Table ESII-2, Japan, Consumer Price Index, ∆%
| 2012 | Nov 2012/Oct 2012 ∆% | Year ∆% |
| CPI All Items | -0.4 | -0.2 |
| CPI Excluding Fresh Food | -0.3 | -0.1 |
| CPI Excluding Food, Alcoholic Beverages and Energy | -0.3 | -0.5 |
| CPI Goods | -0.5 | -0.3 |
| CPI Services | -0.2 | 0.0 |
| CPI Excluding Imputed Rent | -0.4 | -0.1 |
| CPI Fuel, Light, Water Charges | -0.3 | 3.1 |
| CPI Transport & Communications | -0.7 | 0.2 |
| CPI Ku-Area Tokyo All Items | 0.0 | -0.6 |
| Fuel, Light, Water Charges Ku Area Tokyo | -0.3 | 5.4 |
Note: Ku-area Tokyo CPI data preliminary for Dec 2012
Sources: Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/cpi/1581.htm
ESIII United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities. Selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars, from Report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table ESIII-1. Data are not seasonally adjusted to permit comparison between Nov 2011 and Nov 2012. Total assets of US commercial banks grew 3.8 percent from $12,529.7 billion in Nov 2011 to $12,011.2 billion in Nov 2012. US GDP in 2011 is estimated at $15,075.7 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Thus, total assets of US commercial banks are equivalent to around 83 percent of US GDP. Bank credit grew 5.1 percent from $9434.3 billion in Nov 2011 to $9917.1 billion in Nov 2012. Securities in bank credit increased 8.5 percent from $2499.1 billion in Nov 2011 to $2712.6 billion in Nov 2012. A large part of securities in banking credit consists of US Treasury and agency securities, growing 8.5 percent from $1696.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $1859.5 billion in Nov 2012. Credit to the government that issues or backs Treasury and agency securities of $1859.5 in Nov 2012 is about 18.8 percent of total bank credit of US commercial banks of $9917.1 billion. Mortgage-backed securities, providing financing of home loans, grew 8.0 percent, from $1240.6 billion in Nov 2011 to $1339.5 billion in Nov 2012. Loans and leases were less dynamic, growing 3.9 percent from $6935.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. The only dynamic class is commercial and industrial loans, growing 12.3 percent from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 and providing $1485.0 billion or 20.6 percent of total loans and leases of $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. Real estate loans increased only 1.4 percent, providing $3559.4 billion in Nov 2012 or 49.4 percent of total loans and leases. Consumer loans increased only 2.4 percent, providing $1113.7 billion in Nov 2012 or 15.5 percent of total loans. Cash assets “include vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm). Cash assets in US commercial banks increased 0.9 percent from $1650.5 billion in Nov 2011 to $1665.0 billion in Nov 2012 but a single year of the series masks exploding cash in banks as a result of unconventional monetary policy, which is discussed below. Bank deposits increased 8.4 percent from $8420.6 billion to $9132.1 billion. The difference between bank deposits and total loans and leases in banks increased from $1485.4 billion in Nov 2011 to $1927.6 billion in Nov 2012 or by $442.2 billion, which is similar to the increase in securities in bank credit by $206 billion from $2499.1 billion in Nov 2011 to $2712.6 billion in Nov 2012 and to the increase in Treasury and agency securities by $163.3 billion from $1696.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $1859.5 billion in Nov 2012. Loans and leases increased $269.3 billion from $6935.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. Banks expanded both lending and investment in lower risk securities partly because of the weak economy and credit disappointments during the global recession that has resulted in an environment of fewer sound lending opportunities. Lower interest rates resulting from monetary policy may not necessarily encourage higher borrowing in the current loss of dynamism of the US economy with real disposable income per capita in IIIQ2012 lower by 0.4 percent than in IVQ2007 in contrast with long-term growth of per capita income in the United States at 2 percent per year from 1870 to 2010 (Lucas 2011May).
Table ESIII-1, US, Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, NSA, Billions of Dollars
| Nov 2011 | Nov 2012 | ∆% | |
| Total Assets | 12,529.7 | 13,011.2 | 3.8 |
| Bank Credit | 9434.3 | 9917.1 | 5.1 |
| Securities in Bank Credit | 2499.1 | 2712.6 | 8.5 |
| Treasury & Agency Securities | 1696.2 | 1859.5 | 9.6 |
| Mortgage-Backed Securities | 1240.6 | 1339.5 | 8.0 |
| Loans & Leases | 6935.2 | 7204.5 | 3.9 |
| Real Estate Loans | 3510.1 | 3559.4 | 1.4 |
| Consumer Loans | 1087.8 | 1113.7 | 2.4 |
| Commercial & Industrial Loans | 1322.1 | 1485.0 | 12.3 |
| Other Loans & Leases | 1015.1 | 1046.5 | 3.1 |
| Cash Assets* | 1650.5 | 1665.0 | 0.9 |
| Total Liabilities | 11,098.5 | 11,497.0 | 3.6 |
| Deposits | 8420.6 | 9132.1 | 8.4 |
Note: balancing item of residual assets less liabilities not included
*”Includes vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks.”
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rates (SAAR) of change of selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks from the report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table ESIII-2 annually from 2007 to 2011 and for Oct and Nov 2012. The global recession had strong impact on bank assets as shown by declines of total assets of 6.0 percent in 2009 and 2.7 percent in 2010. Loans and leases fell 10.2 percent in 2009 and 5.8 percent in 2010. Commercial and industrial loans fell 18.6 percent in 2009 and 9.0 percent in 2011. Unconventional monetary policy caused an increase of cash assets of banks of 157.6 percent in 2008, 48.1 percent in 2009 and 47.6 percent in 2011 and at the SAAR of 22.4 percent in Aug 2012 but contraction by 49.4 percent in Sep 2012 and 6.0 percent in Oct 2012 followed by increase of 55.6 percent in Nov 2012. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank injected reserves in depository institutions that were held as cash and reserves at the central banks because of the lack of sound lending opportunities and the adverse expectations in the private sector on doing business. The truly dynamic investment of banks has been in securities in bank credit, growing at the SAAR of 15.4 percent in Jul 2012, 2.6 percent in Aug 2012, 5.2 percent in Sep 2012, 4.2 percent in Oct 2012 and 0.9 percent in Nov 2012. Throughout the crisis banks allocated increasing part of their assets to the safety of Treasury and agency securities, or credit to the US government and government-backed credit, with growth of 15.5 percent in 2009 and 15.1 percent in 2010 and at the rate of 16.3 percent in Jul 2012, declining to the rate of 3.4 percent in Aug 2012, 2.1 percent in Sep 2012 and 0.8 percent in Oct 2012 but falling at the rate of 1.9 percent in Nov 2012. Deposits grew at the rate of 10.5 percent in Jul 2012, with the rate declining as for most assets of commercial banks to the rate of 6.2 percent in Aug 2012 but increasing to 7.2 percent in Sep 2012, 8.4 percent in Oct 2012 and 5.5 percent in Nov 2012. The credit intermediation function of banks is broken because of adverse expectations on future business and is not easily mended simply by monetary and fiscal policy. Incentives to business and consumers are more likely to be effective in this environment in recovering willingness to assume risk on the part of the private sector, which is the driver of growth and job creation.
Table ESIII-2, US, Selected Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, ∆%
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Oct 2012 | Nov 2012 | |
| Total Assets | 10.3 | 7.9 | -6.0 | -2.7 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 4.1 |
| Bank Credit | 9.2 | 2.1 | -6.6 | -2.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | -1.7 |
| Securities in Bank Credit | 6.1 | -2.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 1.7 | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Treasury & Agency Securities | -6.4 | 3.1 | 15.5 | 15.1 | 2.9 | 0.8 | -1.9 |
| Other Securities | 26.7 | -8.4 | -5.1 | -7.1 | -0.8 | 11.9 | 7.3 |
| Loans & Leases | 10.2 | 3.3 | -10.2 | -5.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | -2.7 |
| Real Estate Loans | 6.9 | -0.2 | -5.6 | -5.5 | -3.8 | -2.6 | -4.3 |
| Consumer Loans | 5.4 | 5.1 | -3.3 | -7.0 | -0.8 | 1.6 | 3.4 |
| Commercial & Industrial Loans | 18.1 | 12.9 | -18.6 | -9.0 | 9.4 | 10.9 | 2.3 |
| Other Loans & Leases | 19.2 | 1.7 | -23.3 | 0.3 | 19.3 | 0.0 | -11.0 |
| Cash Assets | -0.1 | 157.6 | 48.1 | -7.8 | 47.6 | -6.0 | 55.6 |
| Total Liabilities | 11.2 | 10.6 | -7.2 | -3.4 | 5.5 | -2.8 | -3.0 |
| Deposits | 9.1 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 6.7 | 8.4 | 5.5 |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides cash assets in commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank were processed by increases in bank cash reserves. There is no comparable experience in US economic history and such flood of money was never required to return US economic growth to trend of 3 percent per year and 2 percent per year in per capita income after events such as recessions and wars (Lucas 2011May). It is difficult to argue that higher magnitudes of monetary and fiscal policy impulses would have been more successful. Discovery of such painless and fast adjustment by gigantic impulses of monetary policy of zero interest rates and trillions of dollars of bond buying would have occurred earlier with prior cases of successful implementation. Selective incentives to the private sector of a long-term nature could have been more effective.
Chart ESIII-1, US, Cash Assets in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total assets of Federal Reserve Banks in millions of dollars on Wednesdays from 2002 to 2012. This is what is referred as the leverage of the central bank balance sheet in monetary policy (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-62, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b) 224-27). Consecutive rounds of unconventional monetary policy increased total assets by purchase of mortgage-backed securities, agency securities and Treasury securities. Bank reserves in cash and deposited at the central bank swelled as shown in Chart ESIII-1. The central bank created assets in the form of securities financed with creation of liabilities in the form of reserves of depository institutions.
Chart ESIII-2, US, Total Assets of Federal Reserve Banks, Wednesday Level, Millions of Dollars, 2002 to 2012
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1
Chart ESIII-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides deposits in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Deposit growth clearly accelerated after 2001 and continued during the current cyclical expansion after bumps during the global recession.
Chart ESIII-3, US, Deposits in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides Treasury and agency securities in US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Holdings stabilized between the recessions of 2001 and after IVQ2007. There was rapid growth during the global contraction especially after unconventional monetary policy in 2008 and nearly vertical increase without prior similar historical experience during the various bouts of unconventional monetary policy. Banks hoard cash and less risky Treasury and agency securities instead of risky lending because of the weakness of the economy and the lack of demand for financing sound business projects.
Chart ESIII-4, US, Treasury and Agency Securities in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total loans and leases in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Total loans and leases of US commercial banks contracted sharply and have stalled during the cyclical expansion.
Chart ESIII-5, US, Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides real estate loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Housing subsidies and low interest rates caused a point of inflexion to higher, nearly vertical growth until 2007. Real estate loans have contracted in downward trend partly because of adverse effects of uncertainty on the impact on balance sheets of the various mechanisms of resolution imposed by policy. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Push for cheaper credit hits wall,” on Dec 24, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324660404578197782701079650.html), provides important information and analysis on housing finance. Quantitative easing consists of withdrawing supply of mortgage-backed securities by acquiring them as assets in the Fed balance sheet. Lending banks obtain funds for mortgages by bundling them according to risk and other characteristics and selling them to investors, using the proceeds from the sale to provide the loans to homebuyers or refinancing homeowners. Banks earn net revenue to remunerate capital required for operations from the spread between the rate received from mortgage debtors and the rate implicit in the yield of the mortgage-backed securities. Nick Timiraos (Ibid) finds that the spread was around 0.5 percentage points before the financial crisis of 2007, widening to 1 percentage point after the crisis but jumping to 1.6 percentage points after the Fed engaged in another program of buying mortgage-backed securities, oscillating currently around 1.3 percentage points. The spread has widened because banks have higher costs originating in regulation, litigation on repurchasing defaulted mortgages, loss in case of default and more prudent but more costly scrutiny of property appraisals and income verification. As a result, even if quantitative easing does lower yields of mortgage-backed securities there would not be proportionate reduction in mortgage rates.
Chart ESIII-6, US, Real Estate Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart ESIII-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides consumer loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Consumer loans even increased during the contraction then declined and increased vertically to decline again. There was high demand for reposition of durable goods that exhausted and limited consumption again with increase in savings rates in recent periods.
Chart ESIII-7, US, Consumer Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, US Commercial Banks, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Finally, Chart ESIII-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides commercial and industrial loans not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Commercial and industrial loans fell sharply during both contractions in 2001 and after IVQ2007 and then rebounded with accelerated growth. Commercial and industrial loans have not reached again the peak during the global recession.
Chart ESIII-8, US, Commercial and Industrial Loans in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
IA United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities. Subsection IA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy recapitulates the mechanism of transmission of monetary policy. Subsection IA2 Functions of Banking analyzes the functions of banks in modern banking theory. Subsection IA3 United States Commercial Bank Assets and Liabilities provides data and analysis of US commercial bank balance sheets in report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks in the United States (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm).
IA1 Transmission of Monetary Policy. The critical fact of current world financial markets is the combination of “unconventional” monetary policy with intermittent shocks of financial risk aversion. There are two interrelated unconventional monetary policies. First, unconventional monetary policy consists of (1) reducing short-term policy interest rates toward the “zero bound” such as fixing the fed funds rate at 0 to ¼ percent by decision of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) since Dec 16, 2008 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20081216b.htm). Second, unconventional monetary policy also includes a battery of measures to also reduce long-term interest rates of government securities and asset-backed securities such as mortgage-backed securities.
When inflation is low, the central bank lowers interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand in the economy, which consists of consumption and investment. When inflation is subdued and unemployment high, monetary policy would lower interest rates to stimulate aggregate demand, reducing unemployment. When interest rates decline to zero, unconventional monetary policy would consist of policies such as large-scale purchases of long-term securities to lower their yields. A major portion of credit in the economy is financed with long-term asset-backed securities. Loans for purchasing houses, automobiles and other consumer products are bundled in securities that in turn are sold to investors. Corporations borrow funds for investment by issuing corporate bonds. Loans to small businesses are also financed by bundling them in long-term bonds. Securities markets bridge the needs of higher returns by investors obtaining funds from savers that are channeled to consumers and business for consumption and investment. Lowering the yields of these long-term bonds could lower costs of financing purchases of consumer durables and investment by business. The essential mechanism of transmission from lower interest rates to increases in aggregate demand is portfolio rebalancing. Withdrawal of bonds in a specific maturity segment or directly in a bond category such as currently mortgage-backed securities causes reductions in yield that are equivalent to increases in the prices of the bonds. There can be secondary increases in purchases of those bonds in private portfolios in pursuit of their increasing prices. Lower yields translate into lower costs of buying homes and consumer durables such as automobiles and also lower costs of investment for business. There are two additional intended routes of transmission.
1. Unconventional monetary policy or its expectation can increase stock market valuations (Bernanke 2010WP). Increases in equities traded in stock markets can augment perceptions of the wealth of consumers inducing increases in consumption.
2. Unconventional monetary policy causes devaluation of the dollar relative to other currencies, which can cause increases in net exports of the US that increase aggregate economic activity (Yellen 2011AS).
Monetary policy can lower short-term interest rates quite effectively. Lowering long-term yields is somewhat more difficult. The critical issue is that monetary policy cannot ensure that increasing credit at low interest cost increases consumption and investment. There is a large variety of possible allocation of funds at low interest rates from consumption and investment to multiple risk financial assets. Monetary policy does not control how investors will allocate asset categories. A critical financial practice is to borrow at low short-term interest rates to invest in high-risk, leveraged financial assets. Investors may increase in their portfolios asset categories such as equities, emerging market equities, high-yield bonds, currencies, commodity futures and options and multiple other risk financial assets including structured products. If there is risk appetite, the carry trade from zero interest rates to risk financial assets will consist of short positions at short-term interest rates (or borrowing) and short dollar assets with simultaneous long positions in high-risk, leveraged financial assets such as equities, commodities and high-yield bonds. Low interest rates may induce increases in valuations of risk financial assets that may fluctuate in accordance with perceptions of risk aversion by investors and the public. During periods of muted risk aversion, carry trades from zero interest rates to exposures in risk financial assets cause temporary waves of inflation that may foster instead of preventing financial instability (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html). During periods of risk aversion such as fears of disruption of world financial markets and the global economy resulting from collapse of the European Monetary Union, carry trades are unwound with sharp deterioration of valuations of risk financial assets. More technical discussion is in IA Appendix: Transmission of Unconventional Monetary Policy at http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/11/united-states-unsustainable-fiscal.html.
Charles Evans, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, proposed an “economic state-contingent policy” or “7/3” approach (Evans 2012 Aug 27):
“I think the best way to provide forward guidance is by tying our policy actions to explicit measures of economic performance. There are many ways of doing this, including setting a target for the level of nominal GDP. But recognizing the difficult nature of that policy approach, I have a more modest proposal: I think the Fed should make it clear that the federal funds rate will not be increased until the unemployment rate falls below 7 percent. Knowing that rates would stay low until significant progress is made in reducing unemployment would reassure markets and the public that the Fed would not prematurely reduce its accommodation.
Based on the work I have seen, I do not expect that such policy would lead to a major problem with inflation. But I recognize that there is a chance that the models and other analysis supporting this approach could be wrong. Accordingly, I believe that the commitment to low rates should be dropped if the outlook for inflation over the medium term rises above 3 percent.
The economic conditionality in this 7/3 threshold policy would clarify our forward policy intentions greatly and provide a more meaningful guide on how long the federal funds rate will remain low. In addition, I would indicate that clear and steady progress toward stronger growth is essential.”
Evans (2012Nov27) modified the “7/3” approach to a “6.5/2.5” approach:
“I have reassessed my previous 7/3 proposal. I now think a threshold of 6-1/2 percent for the unemployment rate and an inflation safeguard of 2-1/2 percent, measured in terms of the outlook for total PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures Price Index) inflation over the next two to three years, would be appropriate.”
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decided at its meeting on Dec 12, 2012 to implement the “6.5/2.5” approach (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20121212a.htm):
“To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. In particular, the Committee decided to keep the target range for the federal funds rate at 0 to 1/4 percent and currently anticipates that this exceptionally low range for the federal funds rate will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored.”
Unconventional monetary policy will remain in perpetuity, or QE∞, changing to a “growth mandate.” There are two reasons explaining unconventional monetary policy of QE∞: insufficiency of job creation to reduce unemployment/underemployment at current rates of job creation; and growth of GDP at 1.7 percent, which is well below 3.0 percent estimated by Lucas (2011May) from 1870 to 2010. Unconventional monetary policy interprets the dual mandate of low inflation and maximum employment as mainly a “growth mandate” of forcing economic growth in the US at a rate that generates full employment. A hurdle to this “growth mandate” is that the US economy grew at 6.2 percent on average during cyclical expansions in the postwar period while growth has been at only 2.2 percent on average in the cyclical expansion in the 13 quarters from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012. Zero interest rates and quantitative easing have not provided the impulse for growth and were not required in past successful cyclical expansions.
First, reduction of the unemployment rate to normal would take between 15 and 43.3 years depending on the definition (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html). The US labor force stood at 154.088 million in Oct 2011 and at 155.779 million in Oct 2012, not seasonally adjusted, for increase of 1.691 million, or 140,917 per month. The US labor force stood at 153.683 million in Nov 2011 and 154.953 million in Nov 2012, not seasonally adjusted, for increase of 1.270 million or 105,833 per month. The average increase of 125,778 new nonfarm jobs per month in the US from Mar to Oct 2012 is insufficient even to absorb 140,917 new entrants per month into the labor force. The difference between the average increase of 125,778 new nonfarm jobs per month in the US from Mar to Oct 2012 and the 105,833 average monthly increase in the labor force from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 is 19,945 monthly new jobs net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force. There are 28.6 million in job stress in the US currently. The provision of 19,945 new jobs per month net of absorption of new entrants in the labor force would require 1434 months to provide jobs for the unemployed and underemployed (28.6 million divided by 19,945) or 119 years (1434 divided by 12). Net job creation of 19,945 jobs per month only adds 239,340 jobs in a year. The civilian labor force of the US in Nov 2012 not seasonally adjusted stood at 154.953 million with 11.404 million unemployed or effectively 18.094 million unemployed in this blog’s calculation by inferring those who are not searching because they believe there is no job for them. Reduction of one million unemployed at the current rate of job creation without adding more unemployment requires 4.2 years. Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would be equivalent to unemployment of only 7.748 million for new net job creation of 3.656 million that at the current rate would take 15 years. Under the calculation in this blog there are 18.094 million unemployed by including those who ceased searching because they believe there is no job for them. Reduction of the rate of unemployment to 5 percent of the labor force would require creating 10.346 million jobs net of labor force growth that at the current rate would take 43.2 years. These calculations assume that there are no more recessions, defying United States economic history with periodic contractions of economic activity when unemployment increases sharply.
Second, calculations show that actual US GDP growth is around 1.7 percent per year that will perpetuate unemployment/underemployment (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states_24.html). This rate of 1.7 percent is well below trend growth of 3 percent per year from 1870 to 2010, which has been always recovered after events such as wars and recessions (Lucas 2011May). Weakness of growth is shown by the exceptional one-time contributions to growth from items that are not aggregate demand, 2.53 percentage points contributed by inventory change to growth of 4.1 percent in IVQ2011 and 0.64 percentage points contributed by expenditures in national defense together with 0.73 points of inventory accumulation to growth of 3.1 percent in IIIQ2012. Deducting inventory accumulation and one-time national defense expenditures adjusts IIIQ2012 growth to annual 1.73 percent. Cumulative growth of 2.0 percent in IQ2012, 1.3 percent in IIQ2012 and adjusted 1.73 percent in IIIQ2012 annualizes to 1.7 percent in the first three quarters of 2012 {([(1.02)1/4(1.013)1/4(1.01731/4]4/3 -1)100 = 1.7%}. The actual rate required to reduce unemployment/underemployment to normal is even higher than 3 percent in historical trend.
In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation. Even if there is no inflation QE∞ cannot be abandoned because of the fear of rising interest rates. The economy would operate in an inferior allocation of resources and suboptimal growth path, or interior point of the production possibilities frontier where the optimum of productive efficiency and wellbeing is attained, because of the distortion of risk/return decisions caused by perpetual financial repression. Not even a second-best allocation is feasible with the shocks to efficiency of financial repression in perpetuity.
It may be quite painful to exit QE∞ or use of the balance sheet of the central bank together with zero interest rates forever. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:
Where Rτ is expected revenue in the time horizon from τ =1 to T; Cτ denotes costs; and ρ is an appropriate rate of discount. In words, the value today of a stock or investment project is the net revenue, or revenue less costs, in the investment period from τ =1 to T discounted to the present by an appropriate rate of discount. In the current weak economy, revenues have been increasing more slowly than anticipated in investment plans. An increase in interest rates would affect discount rates used in calculations of present value, resulting in frustration of investment decisions. If V represents value of the stock or investment project, as ρ → ∞, meaning that discount rates increase without bound, then V → 0, or
![clip_image038[1]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5Yi9FteC75UWBWW37KM9R7kjEUqJxwMgAu8gZrK5hDEal_bKI6alP7jih2Fhrp8quySD_egt2hrhgbfr1bUkAuvtDd5JIQrtSaPW43g-p6XlvMMWxYh1nEZ3ufu6PagNTj41BkvD2ydA/s1600-h/clip_image038%25255B1%25255D%25255B2%25255D.gif "clip_image038[1]"){kind=small}
declines.
The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Friedman 1957, 10). According to a subsequent restatement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption decisions is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:
W = Y/r (1)
Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r →0, W grows without bound, W→∞. Equally, as r→∞, W→0. Monetary policy is constrained in a QE∞ trap with all adverse effects of financial repression and resource misallocation because an increase in interest rates causes contraction of wealth, which in the United States is concentrated in home ownership and stocks in own investment portfolios and pension funds that decline during interest rate increases.
IA2 Functions of Banks. Modern banking theory analyzes three important functions provided by banks: monitoring of borrowers, provision of liquidity services and transformation of illiquid assets into immediately liquid assets (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 51-60). These functions require valuation of alternative investment projects that may be distorted by zero interest rates of monetary policy and artificially low long-term interest rates. The QE∞ trap frustrates essential banking functions.
1. Monitoring. Banks monitor projects to ensure that funds are allocated to their intended projects (Diamond 1984, 1996). Banks issue deposits, which are secondary assets, to acquire loans, which are primary assets. Monitoring reduces costs of participating in business projects. Acting as delegated monitor, banks obtain information on the borrower, allowing less costly participation through the issue of unmonitored deposits. Monitoring of borrowers provides enhanced less costly participation by investors through the issue of deposits. There is significant reduction of monitoring costs by delegating to a bank. If there are many potential investors, monitoring by the bank of a credit name is less costly than the sum of individual monitoring of the same credit name by all potential investors. Banks permit borrowers to reach many investors for their projects while affording investors less costly participation in the returns of projects of bank borrowers.
2. Transformation of Illiquid Loans into Liquid Deposits. Diamond and Dybvig (1986) analyze bank services through their balance sheets.
i. Assets. Banks provide loans to borrowers. The evaluation of borrowers prevents “adverse selection,” which consists of banks choosing unsound projects and failing to finance sound projects. Monitoring of loans prevents “moral hazard,” which consists of borrowers using the funds of the loan for purposes other than the project for which they were lent, as for example, using borrowed bank funds for speculative real estate instead of for the intended industrial project. Relationship banking improves the information on borrowers and the monitoring function.
ii. Liabilities. Banks provide numerous services to their clients such as holding deposits, clearing transactions, currency inventory and payments for goods, services and obligations.
iii. Assets and Liabilities: Transformation Function. The transformation function operates through both sides of the balance sheet: banks convert illiquid loans in the asset side into liquid deposits in the liability side. There is rich theory of banking (Diamond and Rajan 2000, 2001a,b). Securitized banking provides the same transformation function by bundling mortgage and other consumer loans into securities that are then sold to investors who finance them in short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 61-6).
Banking was important in facilitating economic growth in historical periods (Cameron 1961, 1967, 1972; Cameron et al. 1992). Banking is also important currently because small- and medium-size business may have no other form of financing than banks in contrast with many options for larger and more mature companies that have access to capital markets. Personal consumptions expenditures have share of 70.5 percent of GDP in IIIQ2012 (Table I-10 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states_24.html). Most consumers rely on their banks for real estate loans, credit cards and personal consumer loans. Thus, it should be expected that success of monetary policy in stimulating the economy would be processed through bank balance sheets.
IA3 United States Commercial Banks Assets and Liabilities. Selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars, from Report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table I-1. Data are not seasonally adjusted to permit comparison between Nov 2011 and Nov 2012. Total assets of US commercial banks grew 3.8 percent from $12,529.7 billion in Nov 2011 to $12,011.2 billion in Nov 2012. US GDP in 2011 is estimated at $15,075.7 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm). Thus, total assets of US commercial banks are equivalent to around 83 percent of US GDP. Bank credit grew 5.1 percent from $9434.3 billion in Nov 2011 to $9917.1 billion in Nov 2012. Securities in bank credit increased 8.5 percent from $2499.1 billion in Nov 2011 to $2712.6 billion in Nov 2012. A large part of securities in banking credit consists of US Treasury and agency securities, growing 8.5 percent from $1696.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $1859.5 billion in Nov 2012. Credit to the government that issues or backs Treasury and agency securities of $1859.5 in Nov 2012 is about 18.8 percent of total bank credit of US commercial banks of $9917.1 billion. Mortgage-backed securities, providing financing of home loans, grew 8.0 percent, from $1240.6 billion in Nov 2011 to $1339.5 billion in Nov 2012. Loans and leases were less dynamic, growing 3.9 percent from $6935.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. The only dynamic class is commercial and industrial loans, growing 12.3 percent from Nov 2011 to Nov 2012 and providing $1485.0 billion or 20.6 percent of total loans and leases of $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. Real estate loans increased only 1.4 percent, providing $3559.4 billion in Nov 2012 or 49.4 percent of total loans and leases. Consumer loans increased only 2.4 percent, providing $1113.7 billion in Nov 2012 or 15.5 percent of total loans. Cash assets “include vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks” (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm). Cash assets in US commercial banks increased 0.9 percent from $1650.5 billion in Nov 2011 to $1665.0 billion in Nov 2012 but a single year of the series masks exploding cash in banks as a result of unconventional monetary policy, which is discussed below. Bank deposits increased 8.4 percent from $8420.6 billion to $9132.1 billion. The difference between bank deposits and total loans and leases in banks increased from $1485.4 billion in Nov 2011 to $1927.6 billion in Nov 2012 or by $442.2 billion, which is similar to the increase in securities in bank credit by $206 billion from $2499.1 billion in Nov 2011 to $2712.6 billion in Nov 2012 and to the increase in Treasury and agency securities by $163.3 billion from $1696.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $1859.5 billion in Nov 2012. Loans and leases increased $269.3 billion from $6935.2 billion in Nov 2011 to $7204.5 billion in Nov 2012. Banks expanded both lending and investment in lower risk securities partly because of the weak economy and credit disappointments during the global recession that has resulted in an environment of fewer sound lending opportunities. Lower interest rates resulting from monetary policy may not necessarily encourage higher borrowing in the current loss of dynamism of the US economy with real disposable income per capita in IIIQ2012 lower by 0.4 percent than in IVQ2007 (Table I-3 below) in contrast with long-term growth of per capita income in the United States at 2 percent per year from 1870 to 2010 (Lucas 2011May).
Table I-1, US, Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, NSA, Billions of Dollars
| Nov 2011 | Nov 2012 | ∆% | |
| Total Assets | 12,529.7 | 13,011.2 | 3.8 |
| Bank Credit | 9434.3 | 9917.1 | 5.1 |
| Securities in Bank Credit | 2499.1 | 2712.6 | 8.5 |
| Treasury & Agency Securities | 1696.2 | 1859.5 | 9.6 |
| Mortgage-Backed Securities | 1240.6 | 1339.5 | 8.0 |
| Loans & Leases | 6935.2 | 7204.5 | 3.9 |
| Real Estate Loans | 3510.1 | 3559.4 | 1.4 |
| Consumer Loans | 1087.8 | 1113.7 | 2.4 |
| Commercial & Industrial Loans | 1322.1 | 1485.0 | 12.3 |
| Other Loans & Leases | 1015.1 | 1046.5 | 3.1 |
| Cash Assets* | 1650.5 | 1665.0 | 0.9 |
| Total Liabilities | 11,098.5 | 11,497.0 | 3.6 |
| Deposits | 8420.6 | 9132.1 | 8.4 |
Note: balancing item of residual assets less liabilities not included
*”Includes vault cash, cash items in process of collection, balances due from depository institutions and balances due from Federal Reserve Banks.”
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Seasonally adjusted annual equivalent rates (SAAR) of change of selected assets and liabilities of US commercial banks from the report H.8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System are provided in Table I-2 annually from 2007 to 2011 and for Oct and Nov 2012. The global recession had strong impact on bank assets as shown by declines of total assets of 6.0 percent in 2009 and 2.7 percent in 2010. Loans and leases fell 10.2 percent in 2009 and 5.8 percent in 2010. Commercial and industrial loans fell 18.6 percent in 2009 and 9.0 percent in 2011. Unconventional monetary policy caused an increase of cash assets of banks of 157.6 percent in 2008, 48.1 percent in 2009 and 47.6 percent in 2011 and at the SAAR of 22.4 percent in Aug 2012 but contraction by 49.4 percent in Sep 2012 and 6.0 percent in Oct 2012 followed by increase of 55.6 percent in Nov 2012. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank injected reserves in depository institutions that were held as cash and reserves at the central banks because of the lack of sound lending opportunities and the adverse expectations in the private sector on doing business. The truly dynamic investment of banks has been in securities in bank credit, growing at the SAAR of 15.4 percent in Jul 2012, 2.6 percent in Aug 2012, 5.2 percent in Sep 2012, 4.2 percent in Oct 2012 and 0.9 percent in Nov 2012. Throughout the crisis banks allocated increasing part of their assets to the safety of Treasury and agency securities, or credit to the US government and government-backed credit, with growth of 15.5 percent in 2009 and 15.1 percent in 2010 and at the rate of 16.3 percent in Jul 2012, declining to the rate of 3.4 percent in Aug 2012, 2.1 percent in Sep 2012 and 0.8 percent in Oct 2012 but falling at the rate of 1.9 percent in Nov 2012. Deposits grew at the rate of 10.5 percent in Jul 2012, with the rate declining as for most assets of commercial banks to the rate of 6.2 percent in Aug 2012 but increasing to 7.2 percent in Sep 2012, 8.4 percent in Oct 2012 and 5.5 percent in Nov 2012. The credit intermediation function of banks is broken because of adverse expectations on future business and is not easily mended simply by monetary and fiscal policy. Incentives to business and consumers are more likely to be effective in this environment in recovering willingness to assume risk on the part of the private sector, which is the driver of growth and job creation.
Table I-2, US, Selected Assets and Liabilities of Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, ∆%
| 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | Oct 2012 | Nov 2012 | |
| Total Assets | 10.3 | 7.9 | -6.0 | -2.7 | 5.3 | 0.1 | 4.1 |
| Bank Credit | 9.2 | 2.1 | -6.6 | -2.7 | 1.8 | 2.0 | -1.7 |
| Securities in Bank Credit | 6.1 | -2.0 | 6.8 | 6.8 | 1.7 | 4.2 | 0.9 |
| Treasury & Agency Securities | -6.4 | 3.1 | 15.5 | 15.1 | 2.9 | 0.8 | -1.9 |
| Other Securities | 26.7 | -8.4 | -5.1 | -7.1 | -0.8 | 11.9 | 7.3 |
| Loans & Leases | 10.2 | 3.3 | -10.2 | -5.8 | 1.8 | 1.2 | -2.7 |
| Real Estate Loans | 6.9 | -0.2 | -5.6 | -5.5 | -3.8 | -2.6 | -4.3 |
| Consumer Loans | 5.4 | 5.1 | -3.3 | -7.0 | -0.8 | 1.6 | 3.4 |
| Commercial & Industrial Loans | 18.1 | 12.9 | -18.6 | -9.0 | 9.4 | 10.9 | 2.3 |
| Other Loans & Leases | 19.2 | 1.7 | -23.3 | 0.3 | 19.3 | 0.0 | -11.0 |
| Cash Assets | -0.1 | 157.6 | 48.1 | -7.8 | 47.6 | -6.0 | 55.6 |
| Total Liabilities | 11.2 | 10.6 | -7.2 | -3.4 | 5.5 | -2.8 | -3.0 |
| Deposits | 9.1 | 5.4 | 5.2 | 2.4 | 6.7 | 8.4 | 5.5 |
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-1 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides quarterly seasonally adjusted annual rates (SAAR) of cash assets in US commercial banks from 1973 to 2012. Unconventional monetary policy caused an increase in cash assets in late 2008 of close to 500 percent at SAAR and also in following policy impulses. Such aggressive policies were not required for growth of GDP at the average rate of 5.7 percent in 13 quarters of cyclical expansion from IQ1983 to IV1985 while the average rate in 13 quarters of cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012 has been at the rate of 2.2 percent (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states_24.html). The difference in magnitude of the recessions is not sufficient to explain weakness of the current cyclical expansion. Bordo (2012Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) find that growth is higher after deeper contractions and contractions with financial crises. There were two consecutive contractions in the 1980s with decline of 2.2 percent in two quarters from IQ1980 to IIIQ1980 and 2.7 percent from IIIQ1981 to IVQ1982 that are almost identical to the contraction of 4.7 percent from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 (Table I-3). There was also a decade-long financial and banking crisis during the 1980s. The debt crisis of 1982 (Pelaez 1986) wiped out a large part of the capital of large US money-center banks. Benston and Kaufman (1997, 139) find that there was failure of 1150 US commercial and savings banks between 1983 and 1990, or about 8 percent of the industry in 1980, which is nearly twice more than between the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1934 through 1983. More than 900 savings and loans associations, representing 25 percent of the industry, were closed, merged or placed in conservatorships (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2008b), 74-7). The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) created the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) and the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAIF) that received $150 billion of taxpayer funds to resolve insolvent savings and loans. The GDP of the US in 1989 was $5482.1 billion (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm), such that the partial cost to taxpayers of that bailout was around 2.7 percent of GDP in a year. US GDP in 2011 is estimated at $15,075.7 billion, such that the bailout would be equivalent to cost to taxpayers of about $412.5 billion in current GDP terms. A major difference with the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) for private-sector banks is that most of the costs were recovered with interest gains whereas in the case of savings and loans there was no recovery.
Chart I-1, US, Cash Assets, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-2 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides quarterly SAARs of bank credit at US commercial banks from 1973 to 2012. Rates collapsed sharply during the global recession as during the recessions of the 1980s and then rebounded. In both episodes rates of growth of bank credit did not return to earlier magnitudes.
Chart I-2, US, Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-3 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides deposits at US commercial banks from 1973 to 2012. Deposits fell sharp during and after the global recession but then rebounded in the cyclical expansion.
Chart I-3, US, Deposits, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
There is similar behavior in the 1980s and in the current cyclical expansion of SAARs holdings of Treasury and agency securities in US commercial banks provided in Chart I-4 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the period 1973 to 2012. Sharp reductions of holdings during the contraction were followed by sharp increases.
Chart I-4, US, Treasury and Agency Securities in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-5 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides SAARs of change of total loans and leases in US commercial banks from 1973 to 2012. The decline in the current cycle of SAARs was much sharper and the rebound did not recover earlier growth rates. Part of the explanation originates in demand for loans that was high during rapid economic growth at 5.7 percent per year on average in the cyclical expansion of the 1980s in contrast with lower demand during tepid economic growth at 2.2 percent per year on average in the current weak expansion.
Chart I-5, US, Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
There is significant difference in the two cycles of the 1980s and the current one in quarterly SAARs of real estate loans in US commercial banks provided in Chart I-6 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The difference is explained by the debacle in real estate after 2006 compared to expansion during the 1980s even in the midst of the crisis of savings and loans and real estate credit. In both cases, government policy tried to influence recovery and avoid market clearing.
Chart I-6, US, Real Estate Loans in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
There is significant difference in quarterly SAARs of change of consumer loans in US commercial banks in the 1980s and during the current cycle as shown in Chart I-7 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Quarterly SAARs of consumer loans in US commercial banks fell sharply during the contraction of 1980 and oscillated with upward trend during the contraction of 1983-1984 but increased sharply in the cyclical expansion. In contrast, SAARs of consumer loans in US commercial banks collapsed to high negative magnitudes during the contraction and have increased at very low magnitudes during the current cyclical expansion.
Chart I-7, US, Consumer Loans in Bank Credit, Commercial Banks, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate, Monthly, 1973-2012, ∆%
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Lucas (2011May) estimates US economic growth in the long-term at 3 percent per year and about 2 percent per year in per capita terms. There are displacements from this trend caused by events such as wars and recessions but the economy then returns to trend. Historical US GDP data exhibit remarkable growth: Lucas (2011May) estimates an increase of US real income per person by a factor of 12 in the period from 1870 to 2010. The explanation by Lucas (2011May) of this remarkable growth experience is that government provided stability and education while elements of “free-market capitalism” were an important driver of long-term growth and prosperity. The analysis is sharpened by comparison with the long-term growth experience of G7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan) and Spain from 1870 to 2010. Countries benefitted from “common civilization” and “technology” to “catch up” with the early growth leaders of the US and UK, eventually growing at a faster rate. Significant part of this catch up occurred after World War II. Lucas (2011May) finds that the catch up stalled in the 1970s. The analysis of Lucas (2011May) is that the 20-40 percent gap that developed originated in differences in relative taxation and regulation that discouraged savings and work incentives in comparison with the US. A larger welfare and regulatory state, according to Lucas (2011May), could be the cause of the 20-40 percent gap. Cobet and Wilson (2002) provide estimates of output per hour and unit labor costs in national currency and US dollars for the US, Japan and Germany from 1950 to 2000 (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). The average yearly rate of productivity change from 1950 to 2000 was 2.9 percent in the US, 6.3 percent for Japan and 4.7 percent for Germany while unit labor costs in USD increased at 2.6 percent in the US, 4.7 percent in Japan and 4.3 percent in Germany. From 1995 to 2000, output per hour increased at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US, 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany while unit labor costs in USD fell at minus 0.7 percent in the US, 4.3 percent in Japan and 7.5 percent in Germany. There was increase in productivity growth in Japan and France within the G7 in the second half of the 1990s but significantly lower than the acceleration of 1.3 percentage points per year in the US. Long-term economic growth and prosperity are measured by the key indicators of growth of real income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation. A refined concept would include real disposable income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation and taxes.
Table I-3 provides the data required for broader comparison of the cyclical expansions of IQ1983 to IVQ1985 and the current one from 2009 to 2012. First, in the 13 quarters from IQ1983 to IVQ1985, GDP increased 19.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.7 percent; real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 14.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 4.3 percent; RDPI per capita increased 11.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent; and population increased 2.7 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent. Second, in the 13 quarters of the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012, GDP increased 7.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.2 percent. In the 12 quarters of cyclical expansion real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 5.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent; RDPI per capita increased 3.0 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.9 percent; and population increased 2.3 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent. Third, since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012, GDP increased 2.5 percent, or barely above the level before the recession. Since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012, real disposable personal income increased 3.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent; population increased 3.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita is 0.4 percent lower than the level before the recession. Real disposable personal income is the actual take home pay after inflation and taxes and real disposable income per capita is what is left per inhabitant. The current cyclical expansion is the worst in the period after World War II in terms of growth of economic activity and income. The United States grew during its history at high rates of per capita income that made its economy the largest in the world. That dynamism is disappearing. Bordo (2012 Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide strong evidence that recoveries have been faster after deeper recessions and recessions with financial crises, casting serious doubts on the conventional explanation of weak growth during the current expansion allegedly because of the depth of the contraction from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 of 4.7 percent and the financial crisis
Table I-3, US, GDP, Real Disposable Personal Income, Real Disposable Income per Capita and Population in 1983-85 and 2007-2011, %
| # Quarters | ∆% | ∆% Annual Equivalent | |
| IQ1983 to IVQ1985 | 13 | ||
| GDP | 19.6 | 5.7 | |
| RDPI | 14.5 | 4.3 | |
| RDPI Per Capita | 11.5 | 3.4 | |
| Population | 2.7 | 0.8 | |
| IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012 | 13 | ||
| GDP | 7.5 | 2.2 | |
| RDPI | 5.4 | 1.6 | |
| RDPI per Capita | 3.0 | 0.9 | |
| Population | 2.3 | 0.7 | |
| IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | 20 | ||
| GDP | 2.5 | 0.5 | |
| RDPI | 3.4 | 0.7 | |
| RDPI per Capita | -0.4 | ||
| Population | 3.9 | 0.8 |
RDPI: Real Disposable Personal Income
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
Chart I-8 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides cash assets in commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Acquisitions of securities for the portfolio of the central bank were processed by increases in bank cash reserves. There is no comparable experience in US economic history and such flood of money was never required to return US economic growth to trend of 3 percent per year and 2 percent per year in per capita income after events such as recessions and wars (Lucas 2011May). It is difficult to argue that higher magnitudes of monetary and fiscal policy impulses would have been more successful. Discovery of such painless and fast adjustment by gigantic impulses of monetary policy of zero interest rates and trillions of dollars of bond buying would have occurred earlier with prior cases of successful implementation. Selective incentives to the private sector of a long-term nature could have been more effective.
Chart I-8, US, Cash Assets in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-9 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total assets of Federal Reserve Banks in millions of dollars on Wednesdays from 2002 to 2012. This is what is referred as the leverage of the central bank balance sheet in monetary policy (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 157-62, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b) 224-27). Consecutive rounds of unconventional monetary policy increased total assets by purchase of mortgage-backed securities, agency securities and Treasury securities. Bank reserves in cash and deposited at the central bank swelled as shown in Chart II-8. The central bank created assets in the form of securities financed with creation of liabilities in the form of reserves of depository institutions.
Chart I-9, US, Total Assets of Federal Reserve Banks, Wednesday Level, Millions of Dollars, 2002 to 2012
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/current/h41.htm#h41tab1
Chart I-10 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides deposits in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Deposit growth clearly accelerated after 2001 and continued during the current cyclical expansion after bumps during the global recession.
Chart I-10, US, Deposits in Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-11 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides Treasury and agency securities in US commercial banks, not seasonally adjusted, in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Holdings stabilized between the recessions of 2001 and after IVQ2007. There was rapid growth during the global contraction especially after unconventional monetary policy in 2008 and nearly vertical increase without prior similar historical experience during the various bouts of unconventional monetary policy. Banks hoard cash and less risky Treasury and agency securities instead of risky lending because of the weakness of the economy and the lack of demand for financing sound business projects.
Chart I-11, US, Treasury and Agency Securities in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-12 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides total loans and leases in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Total loans and leases of US commercial banks contracted sharply and have stalled during the cyclical expansion.
Chart I-12, US, Loans and Leases in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-13 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides real estate loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Housing subsidies and low interest rates caused a point of inflexion to higher, nearly vertical growth until 2007. Real estate loans have contracted in downward trend partly because of adverse effects of uncertainty on the impact on balance sheets of the various mechanisms of resolution imposed by policy. Nick Timiraos, writing on “Push for cheaper credit hits wall,” on Dec 24, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324660404578197782701079650.html), provides important information and analysis on housing finance. Quantitative easing consists of withdrawing supply of mortgage-backed securities by acquiring them as assets in the Fed balance sheet. Lending banks obtain funds for mortgages by bundling them according to risk and other characteristics and selling them to investors, using the proceeds from the sale to provide the loans to homebuyers or refinancing homeowners. Banks earn net revenue to remunerate capital required for operations from the spread between the rate received from mortgage debtors and the rate implicit in the yield of the mortgage-backed securities. Nick Timiraos (Ibid) finds that the spread was around 0.5 percentage points before the financial crisis of 2007, widening to 1 percentage point after the crisis but jumping to 1.6 percentage points after the Fed engaged in another program of buying mortgage-backed securities, oscillating currently around 1.3 percentage points. The spread has widened because banks have higher costs originating in regulation, litigation on repurchasing defaulted mortgages, loss in case of default and more prudent but more costly scrutiny of property appraisals and income verification. As a result, even if quantitative easing does lower yields of mortgage-backed securities there would not be proportionate reduction in mortgage rates.
Chart I-13, US, Real Estate Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Chart I-14 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides consumer loans in US commercial banks not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Consumer loans even increased during the contraction then declined and increased vertically to decline again. There was high demand for reposition of durable goods that exhausted and limited consumption again with increase in savings rates in recent periods.
Chart I-14, US, Consumer Loans in Bank Credit, Not Seasonally Adjusted, US Commercial Banks, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
Finally, Chart I-15 of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides commercial and industrial loans not seasonally adjusted in billions of dollars from 1973 to 2012. Commercial and industrial loans fell sharply during both contractions in 2001 and after IVQ2007 and then rebounded with accelerated growth. Commercial and industrial loans have not reached again the peak during the global recession.
![clip_image036[1]](file:///C:\Users\cmpelaez\AppData\Local\Temp\WindowsLiveWriter1264636800\supfiles20B673\ChII15DDPChart3.png "clip_image036[1]")
Chart I-15, US, Commercial and Industrial Loans in Bank Credit, US Commercial Banks, Not Seasonally Adjusted, Monthly, 1973-2012, Billions of Dollars
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/current/default.htm
IB Collapse of United States Dynamism of Income Growth and Employment Creation. There are four major approaches to the analysis of the depth of the financial crisis and global recession from IVQ2007 (Dec) to IIQ2009 (Jun) and the subpar recovery from IIIQ2009 (Jul) to the present IIIQ2012: (1) deeper contraction and slower recovery in recessions with financial crises; (2) counterfactual of avoiding deeper contraction by fiscal and monetary policies; (3) counterfactual that the financial crises and global recession would have been avoided had economic policies been different; and (4) evidence that growth rates are higher after deeper recessions with financial crises. A counterfactual consists of theory and measurements of what would have occurred otherwise if economic policies or institutional arrangements had been different. This task is quite difficult because economic data are observed with all effects as they actually occurred while the counterfactual attempts to evaluate how data would differ had policies and institutional arrangements been different (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Globalization and the State, Vol. I (2008b), 125, 136). Counterfactual data are unobserved and must be calculated using theory and measurement methods. The measurement of costs and benefits of projects or applied welfare economics (Harberger 1971, 1997) specifies and attempts to measure projects such as what would be economic welfare with or without a bridge or whether markets would be more or less competitive in the absence of antitrust and regulation laws (Winston 2006). Counterfactuals were used in the “new economic history” of the United States to measure the economy with or without railroads (Fishlow 1965, Fogel 1964) and also in analyzing slavery (Fogel and Engerman 1974). A critical counterfactual in economic history is how Britain surged ahead of France (North and Weingast 1989). These four approaches are discussed below in turn followed with comparison of the two recessions of the 1980s from IQ1980 (Jan) to IIIQ1980 (Jul) and from IIIQ1981 (Jul) to IVQ1982 (Nov) as dated by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER http://www.nber.org/cycles.html). These comparisons are not idle exercises, defining the interpretation of history and even possibly critical policies and institutional arrangements. There is active debate on these issues (Bordo 2012Oct 21 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/why-this-u-s-recovery-is-weaker.html Reinhart and Rogoff, 2012Oct14 http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/rogoff/files/Is_US_Different_RR_3.pdf Taylor 2012Oct 25 http://www.johnbtaylorsblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/an-unusually-weak-recovery-as-usually.html, Wolf 2012Oct23 http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/791fc13a-1c57-11e2-a63b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AotsUk1q).
(1) Lower Growth Rates in Recessions with Financial Crises. A monumental effort of data gathering, calculation and analysis by Professors Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff at Harvard University is highly relevant to banking crises, financial crash, debt crises and economic growth (Reinhart 2010CB; Reinhart and Rogoff 2011AF, 2011Jul14, 2011EJ, 2011CEPR, 2010FCDC, 2010GTD, 2009TD, 2009AFC, 2008TDPV; see also Reinhart and Reinhart 2011Feb, 2010AF and Reinhart and Sbrancia 2011). See http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html. The dataset of Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 1) is quite unique in breadth of countries and over time periods:
“Our results incorporate data on 44 countries spanning about 200 years. Taken together, the data incorporate over 3,700 annual observations covering a wide range of political systems, institutions, exchange rate and monetary arrangements and historic circumstances. We also employ more recent data on external debt, including debt owed by government and by private entities.”
Reinhart and Rogoff (2010GTD, 2011CEPR) classify the dataset of 2317 observations into 20 advanced economies and 24 emerging market economies. In each of the advanced and emerging categories, the data for countries is divided into buckets according to the ratio of gross central government debt to GDP: below 30, 30 to 60, 60 to 90 and higher than 90 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Table 1, 4). Median and average yearly percentage growth rates of GDP are calculated for each of the buckets for advanced economies. There does not appear to be any relation for debt/GDP ratios below 90. The highest growth rates are for debt/GDP ratios below 30: 3.7 percent for the average and 3.9 for the median. Growth is significantly lower for debt/GDP ratios above 90: 1.7 for the average and 1.9 percent for the median. GDP growth rates for the intermediate buckets are in a range around 3 percent: the highest 3.4 percent average is for the bucket 60 to 90 and 3.1 percent median for 30 to 60. There is even sharper contrast for the United States: 4.0 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio below 30; 3.4 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 30 to 60; 3.3 percent growth for debt/GDP ratio of 60 to 90; and minus 1.8 percent, contraction, of GDP for debt/GDP ratio above 90.
For the five countries with systemic financial crises—Iceland, Ireland, UK, Spain and the US—real average debt levels have increased by 75 percent between 2007 and 2009 (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010GTD, Figure 1). The cumulative increase in public debt in the three years after systemic banking crisis in a group of episodes after World War II is 86 percent (Reinhart and Rogoff 2011CEPR, Figure 2, 10).
An important concept is “this time is different syndrome,” which “is rooted in the firmly-held belief that financial crises are something that happens to other people in other countries at other times; crises do not happen here and now to us” (Reinhart and Rogoff 2010FCDC, 9). There is both an arrogance and ignorance in “this time is different” syndrome, as explained by Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 34):
“The ignorance, of course, stems from the belief that financial crises happen to other people at other time in other places. Outside a small number of experts, few people fully appreciate the universality of financial crises. The arrogance is of those who believe they have figured out how to do things better and smarter so that the boom can long continue without a crisis.”
There is sober warning by Reinhart and Rogoff (2011CEPR, 42) on the basis of the momentous effort of their scholarly data gathering, calculation and analysis:
“Despite considerable deleveraging by the private financial sector, total debt remains near its historic high in 2008. Total public sector debt during the first quarter of 2010 is 117 percent of GDP. It has only been higher during a one-year sting at 119 percent in 1945. Perhaps soaring US debt levels will not prove to be a drag on growth in the decades to come. However, if history is any guide, that is a risky proposition and over-reliance on US exceptionalism may only be one more example of the “This Time is Different” syndrome.”
As both sides of the Atlantic economy maneuver around defaults the experience on debt and growth deserves significant emphasis in research and policy. The world economy is slowing with high levels of unemployment in advanced economies. Countries do not grow themselves out of unsustainable debts but rather through de facto defaults by means of financial repression and in some cases through inflation. The conclusion is that this time is not different.
Professor Alan M. Taylor (2012) at the University of Virginia analyzes own and collaborative research on 140 years of history with data from 14 advanced economies in the effort to elucidate experience anticipating, during and after financial crises. The conclusion is (Allan M. Taylor 2012, 8):
“Recessions might be painful, but they tend to be even more painful when combined with financial crises or (worse) global crises, and we already know that post-2008 experience will not overturn this conclusion. The impact on credit is also very strong: financial crises lead to strong setbacks in the rate of growth of loans as compared to what happens in normal recessions, and this effect is strong for global crises. Finally, inflation generally falls in recessions, but the downdraft is stronger in financial crisis times.”
Alan M. Taylor (2012) also finds that advanced economies entered the global recession with the largest financial sector in history. There was doubling after 1980 of the ratio of loans to GDP and tripling of the size of bank balance sheets. In contrast, in the period from 1950 to 1970 there was high investment, savings and growth in advanced economies with firm regulation of finance and controls of foreign capital flows.
(2) Counterfactual of the Global Recession. There is a difficult decision on when to withdraw the fiscal stimulus that could have adverse consequences on current growth and employment analyzed by Krugman (2011Jun18). CBO (2011JunLTBO, Chapter 2) considers the timing of withdrawal as well as the equally tough problems that result from not taking prompt action to prevent a possible debt crisis in the future. Krugman (2011Jun18) refers to Eggertsson and Krugman (2010) on the possible contractive effects of debt. The world does not become poorer as a result of debt because an individual’s asset is another’s liability. Past levels of credit may become unacceptable by credit tightening, such as during a financial crisis. Debtors are forced into deleveraging, which results in expenditure reduction, but there may not be compensatory effects by creditors who may not be in need of increasing expenditures. The economy could be pushed toward the lower bound of zero interest rates, or liquidity trap, remaining in that threshold of deflation and high unemployment.
Analysis of debt can lead to the solution of the timing of when to cease stimulus by fiscal spending (Krugman 2011Jun18). Excessive debt caused the financial crisis and global recession and it is difficult to understand how more debt can recover the economy. Krugman (2011Jun18) argues that the level of debt is not important because one individual’s asset is another individual’s liability. The distribution of debt is important when economic agents with high debt levels are encountering different constraints than economic agents with low debt levels. The opportunity for recovery may exist in borrowing by some agents that can adjust the adverse effects of past excessive borrowing by other agents. As Krugman (2011Jun18, 20) states:
“Suppose, in particular, that the government can borrow for a while, using the borrowed money to buy useful things like infrastructure. The true social cost of these things will be very low, because the spending will be putting resources that would otherwise be unemployed to work. And government spending will also make it easier for highly indebted players to pay down their debt; if the spending is sufficiently sustained, it can bring the debtors to the point where they’re no longer so severely balance-sheet constrained, and further deficit spending is no longer required to achieve full employment. Yes, private debt will in part have been replaced by public debt – but the point is that debt will have been shifted away from severely balance-sheet-constrained players, so that the economy’s problems will have been reduced even if the overall level of debt hasn’t fallen. The bottom line, then, is that the plausible-sounding argument that debt can’t cure debt is just wrong. On the contrary, it can – and the alternative is a prolonged period of economic weakness that actually makes the debt problem harder to resolve.”
Besides operational issues, the consideration of this argument would require specifying and measuring two types of gains and losses from this policy: (1) the benefits in terms of growth and employment currently; and (2) the costs of postponing the adjustment such as in the exercise by CBO (2011JunLTO, 28-31) in Table 11. It may be easier to analyze the costs and benefits than actual measurement.
An analytical and empirical approach is followed by Blinder and Zandi (2010), using the Moody’s Analytics model of the US economy with four different scenarios: (1) baseline with all policies used; (2) counterfactual including all fiscal stimulus policies but excluding financial stimulus policies; (3) counterfactual including all financial stimulus policies but excluding fiscal stimulus; and (4) a scenario excluding all policies. The scenario excluding all policies is an important reference or the counterfactual of what would have happened if the government had been entirely inactive. A salient feature of the work by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is the consideration of both fiscal and financial policies. There was probably more activity with financial policies than with fiscal policies. Financial policies included the Fed balance sheet, 11 facilities of direct credit to illiquid segments of financial markets, interest rate policy, the Financial Stability Plan including stress tests of banks, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and others (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009b), 157-67; Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009a), 224-7).
Blinder and Zandi (2010, 4) find that:
“In the scenario that excludes all the extraordinary policies, the downturn continues into 2011. Real GDP falls a stunning 7.4% in 2009 and another 3.7% in 2010 (see Table 3). The peak-to-trough decline in GDP is therefore close to 12%, compared to an actual decline of about 4%. By the time employment hits bottom, some 16.6 million jobs are lost in this scenario—about twice as many as actually were lost. The unemployment rate peaks at 16.5%, and although not determined in this analysis, it would not be surprising if the underemployment rate approached one-fourth of the labor force. The federal budget deficit surges to over $2 trillion in fiscal year 2010, $2.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011, and $2.25 trillion in FY 2012. Remember, this is with no policy response. With outright deflation in prices and wages in 2009-2011, this dark scenario constitutes a 1930s-like depression.”
The conclusion by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is that if the US had not taken massive fiscal and financial measures the economy could have suffered far more during a prolonged period. There are still a multitude of questions that cloud understanding of the impact of the recession and what would have happened without massive policy impulses. Some effects are quite difficult to measure. An important argument by Blinder and Zandi (2010) is that this evaluation of counterfactuals is relevant to the need of stimulus if economic conditions worsened again.
(3) Counterfactual of Policies Causing the Financial Crisis and Global Recession. The counterfactual of avoidance of deeper and more prolonged contraction by fiscal and monetary policies is not the critical issue. As Professor John B. Taylor (2012Oct25) argues the critically important counterfactual is that the financial crisis and global recessions would have not occurred in the first place if different economic policies had been followed. The counterfactual intends to verify that a combination of housing policies and discretionary monetary policies instead of rules (Taylor 1993) caused, deepened and prolonged the financial crisis (Taylor 2007, 2008Nov, 2009, 2012FP, 2012Mar27, 2012Mar28, 2012JMCB; see http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html) and that the experience resembles that of the Great Inflation of the 1960s and 1970s with stop-and-go growth/inflation that coined the term stagflation (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/rules-versus-discretionary-authorities.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/slowing-growth-global-inflation-great.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/new-economics-of-rose-garden-turned.html http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-there-second-act-of-us-great.html and Appendix I).
The explanation of the sharp contraction of United States housing can probably be found in the origins of the financial crisis and global recession. Let V(T) represent the value of the firm’s equity at time T and B stand for the promised debt of the firm to bondholders and assume that corporate management, elected by equity owners, is acting on the interests of equity owners. Robert C. Merton (1974, 453) states:
“On the maturity date T, the firm must either pay the promised payment of B to the debtholders or else the current equity will be valueless. Clearly, if at time T, V(T) > B, the firm should pay the bondholders because the value of equity will be V(T) – B > 0 whereas if they do not, the value of equity would be zero. If V(T) ≤ B, then the firm will not make the payment and default the firm to the bondholders because otherwise the equity holders would have to pay in additional money and the (formal) value of equity prior to such payments would be (V(T)- B) < 0.”
Pelaez and Pelaez (The Global Recession Risk (2007), 208-9) apply this analysis to the US housing market in 2005-2006 concluding:
“The house market [in 2006] is probably operating with low historical levels of individual equity. There is an application of structural models [Duffie and Singleton 2003] to the individual decisions on whether or not to continue paying a mortgage. The costs of sale would include realtor and legal fees. There could be a point where the expected net sale value of the real estate may be just lower than the value of the mortgage. At that point, there would be an incentive to default. The default vulnerability of securitization is unknown.”
There are multiple important determinants of the interest rate: “aggregate wealth, the distribution of wealth among investors, expected rate of return on physical investment, taxes, government policy and inflation” (Ingersoll 1987, 405). Aggregate wealth is a major driver of interest rates (Ibid, 406). Unconventional monetary policy, with zero fed funds rates and flattening of long-term yields by quantitative easing, causes uncontrollable effects on risk taking that can have profound undesirable effects on financial stability. Excessively aggressive and exotic monetary policy is the main culprit and not the inadequacy of financial management and risk controls.
The net worth of the economy depends on interest rates. In theory, “income is generally defined as the amount a consumer unit could consume (or believe that it could) while maintaining its wealth intact” (Friedman 1957, 10). Income, Y, is a flow that is obtained by applying a rate of return, r, to a stock of wealth, W, or Y = rW (Ibid). According to a subsequent restatement: “The basic idea is simply that individuals live for many years and that therefore the appropriate constraint for consumption decisions is the long-run expected yield from wealth r*W. This yield was named permanent income: Y* = r*W” (Darby 1974, 229), where * denotes permanent. The simplified relation of income and wealth can be restated as:
W = Y/r (1)
Equation (1) shows that as r goes to zero, r →0, W grows without bound, W→∞.
Lowering the interest rate near the zero bound in 2003-2004 caused the illusion of permanent increases in wealth or net worth in the balance sheets of borrowers and also of lending institutions, securitized banking and every financial institution and investor in the world. The discipline of calculating risks and returns was seriously impaired. The objective of monetary policy was to encourage borrowing, consumption and investment but the exaggerated stimulus resulted in a financial crisis of major proportions as the securitization that had worked for a long period was shocked with policy-induced excessive risk, imprudent credit, high leverage and low liquidity by the incentive to finance everything overnight at close to zero interest rates, from adjustable rate mortgages (ARMS) to asset-backed commercial paper of structured investment vehicles (SIV).
The consequences of inflating liquidity and net worth of borrowers were a global hunt for yields to protect own investments and money under management from the zero interest rates and unattractive long-term yields of Treasuries and other securities. Monetary policy distorted the calculations of risks and returns by households, business and government by providing central bank cheap money. Short-term zero interest rates encourage financing of everything with short-dated funds, explaining the SIVs created off-balance sheet to issue short-term commercial paper to purchase default-prone mortgages that were financed in overnight or short-dated sale and repurchase agreements (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 50-1, Regulation of Banks and Finance, 59-60, Globalization and the State Vol. I, 89-92, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 198-9, Government Intervention in Globalization, 62-3, International Financial Architecture, 144-9). ARMS were created to lower monthly mortgage payments by benefitting from lower short-dated reference rates. Financial institutions economized in liquidity that was penalized with near zero interest rates. There was no perception of risk because the monetary authority guaranteed a minimum or floor price of all assets by maintaining low interest rates forever or equivalent to writing an illusory put option on wealth. Subprime mortgages were part of the put on wealth by an illusory put on house prices. The housing subsidy of $221 billion per year created the impression of ever increasing house prices. The suspension of auctions of 30-year Treasuries was designed to increase demand for mortgage-backed securities, lowering their yield, which was equivalent to lowering the costs of housing finance and refinancing. Fannie and Freddie purchased or guaranteed $1.6 trillion of nonprime mortgages and worked with leverage of 75:1 under Congress-provided charters and lax oversight. The combination of these policies resulted in high risks because of the put option on wealth by near zero interest rates, excessive leverage because of cheap rates, low liquidity because of the penalty in the form of low interest rates and unsound credit decisions because the put option on wealth by monetary policy created the illusion that nothing could ever go wrong, causing the credit/dollar crisis and global recession (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession, 157-66, Regulation of Banks, and Finance, 217-27, International Financial Architecture, 15-18, The Global Recession Risk, 221-5, Globalization and the State Vol. II, 197-213, Government Intervention in Globalization, 182-4).
There are significant elements of the theory of bank financial fragility of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) and Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b) that help to explain the financial fragility of banks during the credit/dollar crisis (see also Diamond 2007). The theory of Diamond and Dybvig (1983) as exposed by Diamond (2007) is that banks funding with demand deposits have a mismatch of liquidity (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 58-66). A run occurs when too many depositors attempt to withdraw cash at the same time. All that is needed is an expectation of failure of the bank. Three important functions of banks are providing evaluation, monitoring and liquidity transformation. Banks invest in human capital to evaluate projects of borrowers in deciding if they merit credit. The evaluation function reduces adverse selection or financing projects with low present value. Banks also provide important monitoring services of following the implementation of projects, avoiding moral hazard that funds be used for, say, real estate speculation instead of the original project of factory construction. The transformation function of banks involves both assets and liabilities of bank balance sheets. Banks convert an illiquid asset or loan for a project with cash flows in the distant future into a liquid liability in the form of demand deposits that can be withdrawn immediately.
In the theory of banking of Diamond and Rajan (2000, 2001a, 2001b), the bank creates liquidity by tying human assets to capital. The collection of skills of the relationship banker converts an illiquid project of an entrepreneur into liquid demand deposits that are immediately available for withdrawal. The deposit/capital structure is fragile because of the threat of bank runs. In these days of online banking, the run on Washington Mutual was through withdrawals online. A bank run can be triggered by the decline of the value of bank assets below the value of demand deposits.
Pelaez and Pelaez (Regulation of Banks and Finance 2009b, 60, 64-5) find immediate application of the theories of banking of Diamond, Dybvig and Rajan to the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. It is a credit crisis because the main issue was the deterioration of the credit portfolios of securitized banks as a result of default of subprime mortgages. It is a dollar crisis because of the weakening dollar resulting from relatively low interest rate policies of the US. It caused systemic effects that converted into a global recession not only because of the huge weight of the US economy in the world economy but also because the credit crisis transferred to the UK and Europe. Management skills or human capital of banks are illustrated by financial engineering of complex products. The increasing importance of human relative to inanimate capital (Rajan and Zingales 2000) is revolutionizing the theory of the firm (Zingales 2000) and corporate governance (Rajan and Zingales 2001). Finance is one of the most important examples of this transformation. Profits were derived from the charter in the original banking institution. Pricing and structuring financial instruments was revolutionized with option pricing formulas developed by Black and Scholes (1973) and Merton (1973, 1974, 1998) that permitted the development of complex products with fair pricing. The successful financial company must attract and retain finance professionals who have invested in human capital, which is a sunk cost to them and not of the institution where they work.
The complex financial products created for securitized banking with high investments in human capital are based on houses, which are as illiquid as the projects of entrepreneurs in the theory of banking. The liquidity fragility of the securitized bank is equivalent to that of the commercial bank in the theory of banking (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65). Banks created off-balance sheet structured investment vehicles (SIV) that issued commercial paper receiving AAA rating because of letters of liquidity guarantee by the banks. The commercial paper was converted into liquidity by its use as collateral in SRPs at the lowest rates and minimal haircuts because of the AAA rating of the guarantor bank. In the theory of banking, default can be triggered when the value of assets is perceived as lower than the value of the deposits. Commercial paper issued by SIVs, securitized mortgages and derivatives all obtained SRP liquidity on the basis of illiquid home mortgage loans at the bottom of the pyramid. The run on the securitized bank had a clear origin (Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 65):
“The increasing default of mortgages resulted in an increase in counterparty risk. Banks were hit by the liquidity demands of their counterparties. The liquidity shock extended to many segments of the financial markets—interbank loans, asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP), high-yield bonds and many others—when counterparties preferred lower returns of highly liquid safe havens, such as Treasury securities, than the risk of having to sell the collateral in SRPs at deep discounts or holding an illiquid asset. The price of an illiquid asset is near zero.”
Gorton and Metrick (2010H, 507) provide a revealing quote to the work in 1908 of Edwin R. A. Seligman, professor of political economy at Columbia University, founding member of the American Economic Association and one of its presidents and successful advocate of progressive income taxation. The intention of the quote is to bring forth the important argument that financial crises are explained in terms of “confidence” but as Professor Seligman states in reference to historical banking crises in the US the important task is to explain what caused the lack of confidence. It is instructive to repeat the more extended quote of Seligman (1908, xi) on the explanations of banking crises:
“The current explanations may be divided into two categories. Of these the first includes what might be termed the superficial theories. Thus it is commonly stated that the outbreak of a crisis is due to lack of confidence,--as if the lack of confidence was not in itself the very thing which needs to be explained. Of still slighter value is the attempt to associate a crisis with some particular governmental policy, or with some action of a country’s executive. Such puerile interpretations have commonly been confined to countries like the United States, where the political passions of democracy have had the fullest way. Thus the crisis of 1893 was ascribed by the Republicans to the impending Democratic tariff of 1894; and the crisis of 1907 has by some been termed the ‘[Theodore] Roosevelt panic,” utterly oblivious of the fact that from the time of President Jackson, who was held responsible for the troubles of 1837, every successive crisis had had its presidential scapegoat, and has been followed by a political revulsion. Opposed to these popular, but wholly unfounded interpretations, is the second class of explanations, which seek to burrow beneath the surface and to discover the more occult and fundamental causes of the periodicity of crises.”
Scholars ignore superficial explanations in the effort to seek good and truth. The problem of economic analysis of the credit/dollar crisis is the lack of a structural model with which to attempt empirical determination of causes (Gorton and Metrick 2010SB). There would still be doubts even with a well-specified structural model because samples of economic events do not typically permit separating causes and effects. There is also confusion is separating the why of the crisis and how it started and propagated, all of which are extremely important.
In true heritage of the principles of Seligman (1908), Gorton (2009EFM) discovers a prime causal driver of the credit/dollar crisis. The objective of subprime and Alt-A mortgages was to facilitate loans to populations with modest means so that they could acquire a home. These borrowers would not receive credit because of (1) lack of funds for down payments; (2) low credit rating and information; (3) lack of information on income; and (4) errors or lack of other information. Subprime mortgage “engineering” was based on the belief that both lender and borrower could benefit from increases in house prices over the short run. The initial mortgage would be refinanced in two or three years depending on the increase of the price of the house. According to Gorton (2009EFM, 13, 16):
“The outstanding amounts of Subprime and Alt-A [mortgages] combined amounted to about one quarter of the $6 trillion mortgage market in 2004-2007Q1. Over the period 2000-2007, the outstanding amount of agency mortgages doubled, but subprime grew 800%! Issuance in 2005 and 2006 of Subprime and Alt-A mortgages was almost 30% of the mortgage market. Since 2000 the Subprime and Alt-A segments of the market grew at the expense of the Agency (i.e., the government sponsored entities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) share, which fell from almost 80% (by outstanding or issuance) to about half by issuance and 67% by outstanding amount. The lender’s option to rollover the mortgage after an initial period is implicit in the subprime mortgage. The key design features of a subprime mortgage are: (1) it is short term, making refinancing important; (2) there is a step-up mortgage rate that applies at the end of the first period, creating a strong incentive to refinance; and (3) there is a prepayment penalty, creating an incentive not to refinance early.”
The prime objective of successive administrations in the US during the past 20 years and actually since the times of Roosevelt in the 1930s has been to provide “affordable” financing for the “American dream” of home ownership. The US housing finance system is mixed with public, public/private and purely private entities. The Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) system was established by Congress in 1932 that also created the Federal Housing Administration in 1934 with the objective of insuring homes against default. In 1938, the government created the Federal National Mortgage Association, or Fannie Mae, to foster a market for FHA-insured mortgages. Government-insured mortgages were transferred from Fannie Mae to the Government National Mortgage Association, or Ginnie Mae, to permit Fannie Mae to become a publicly-owned company. Securitization of mortgages began in 1970 with the government charter to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or Freddie Mac, with the objective of bundling mortgages created by thrift institutions that would be marketed as bonds with guarantees by Freddie Mac (see Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 42-8). In the third quarter of 2008, total mortgages in the US were $12,057 billion of which 43.5 percent, or $5423 billion, were retained or guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009a), 45). In 1990, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a share of only 25.4 percent of total mortgages in the US. Mortgages in the US increased from $6922 billion in 2002 to $12,088 billion in 2007, or by 74.6 percent, while the retained or guaranteed portfolio of Fannie and Freddie rose from $3180 billion in 2002 to $4934 billion in 2007, or by 55.2 percent.
According to Pinto (2008) in testimony to Congress:
“There are approximately 25 million subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding, with an unpaid principal amount of over $4.5 trillion, about half of them held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie. Their high risk activities were allowed to operate at 75:1 leverage ratio. While they may deny it, there can be no doubt that Fannie and Freddie now own or guarantee $1.6 trillion in subprime, Alt-A and other default prone loans and securities. This comprises over 1/3 of their risk portfolios and amounts to 34% of all the subprime loans and 60% of all Alt-A loans outstanding. These 10.5 million unsustainable, nonprime loans are experiencing a default rate 8 times the level of the GSEs’ 20 million traditional quality loans. The GSEs will be responsible for a large percentage of an estimated 8.8 million foreclosures expected over the next 4 years, accounting for the failure of about 1 in 6 home mortgages. Fannie and Freddie have subprimed America.”
In perceptive analysis of growth and macroeconomics in the past six decades, Rajan (2012FA) argues that “the West can’t borrow and spend its way to recovery.” The Keynesian paradigm is not applicable in current conditions. Advanced economies in the West could be divided into those that reformed regulatory structures to encourage productivity and others that retained older structures. In the period from 1950 to 2000, Cobet and Wilson (2002) find that US productivity, measured as output/hour, grew at the average yearly rate of 2.9 percent while Japan grew at 6.3 percent and Germany at 4.7 percent (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 135-44). In the period from 1995 to 2000, output/hour grew at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US but at lower rates of 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany. Rajan (2012FA) argues that the differential in productivity growth was accomplished by deregulation in the US at the end of the 1970s and during the 1980s. In contrast, Europe did not engage in reform with the exception of Germany in the early 2000s that empowered the German economy with significant productivity advantage. At the same time, technology and globalization increased relative remunerations in highly-skilled, educated workers relative to those without skills for the new economy. It was then politically appealing to improve the fortunes of those left behind by the technological revolution by means of increasing cheap credit. As Rajan (2012FA) argues:
“In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, partly to gain more control over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant private mortgage agencies, and partly to promote affordable homeownership for low-income groups. Such policies helped money flow to lower-middle-class households and raised their spending—so much so that consumption inequality rose much less than income inequality in the years before the crisis. These policies were also politically popular. Unlike when it came to an expansion in government welfare transfers, few groups opposed expanding credit to the lower-middle class—not the politicians who wanted more growth and happy constituents, not the bankers and brokers who profited from the mortgage fees, not the borrowers who could now buy their dream houses with virtually no money down, and not the laissez-faire bank regulators who thought they could pick up the pieces if the housing market collapsed. The Federal Reserve abetted these shortsighted policies. In 2001, in response to the dot-com bust, the Fed cut short-term interest rates to the bone. Even though the overstretched corporations that were meant to be stimulated were not interested in investing, artificially low interest rates acted as a tremendous subsidy to the parts of the economy that relied on debt, such as housing and finance. This led to an expansion in housing construction (and related services, such as real estate brokerage and mortgage lending), which created jobs, especially for the unskilled. Progressive economists applauded this process, arguing that the housing boom would lift the economy out of the doldrums. But the Fed-supported bubble proved unsustainable. Many construction workers have lost their jobs and are now in deeper trouble than before, having also borrowed to buy unaffordable houses. Bankers obviously deserve a large share of the blame for the crisis. Some of the financial sector’s activities were clearly predatory, if not outright criminal. But the role that the politically induced expansion of credit played cannot be ignored; it is the main reason the usual checks and balances on financial risk taking broke down.”
In fact, Raghuram G. Rajan (2005) anticipated low liquidity in financial markets resulting from low interest rates before the financial crisis that caused distortions of risk/return decisions provoking the credit/dollar crisis and global recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. Near zero interest rates of unconventional monetary policy induced excessive risks and low liquidity in financial decisions that were critical as a cause of the credit/dollar crisis after 2007. Rajan (2012FA) argues that it is not feasible to return to the employment and income levels before the credit/dollar crisis because of the bloated construction sector, financial system and government budgets.
(4) Historically Sharper Recoveries from Deeper Contractions and Financial Crises. Professor Michael D. Bordo (2012Sep27), at Rutgers University, is providing clear thought on the correct comparison of the current business cycles in the United States with those in United States history. There are two issues raised by Professor Bordo: (1) lumping together countries with different institutions, economic policies and financial systems; and (2) the conclusion that growth is mediocre after financial crises and deep recessions, which is repeated daily in the media, but that Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) persuasively demonstrate to be inconsistent with United States experience.
Depriving economic history of institutions is perilous as is illustrated by the economic history of Brazil. Douglass C. North (1994) emphasized the key role of institutions in explaining economic history. Rondo E. Cameron (1961, 1967, 1972) applied institutional analysis to banking history. Friedman and Schwartz (1963) analyzed the relation of money, income and prices in the business cycle and related the monetary policy of an important institution, the Federal Reserve System, to the Great Depression. Bordo, Choudhri and Schwartz (1995) analyze the counterfactual of what would have been economic performance if the Fed had used during the Great Depression the Friedman (1960) monetary policy rule of constant growth of money(for analysis of the Great Depression see Pelaez and Pelaez, Regulation of Banks and Finance (2009b), 198-217). Alan Meltzer (2004, 2010a,b) analyzed the Federal Reserve System over its history. The reader would be intrigued by Figure 5 in Reinhart and Rogoff (2010FCDC, 15) in which Brazil is classified in external default for seven years between 1828 and 1834 but not again until 64 years later in 1989, above the 50 years of incidence for “serial default”. This void has been filled in scholarly research on nineteenth-century Brazil by William R. Summerhill, Jr. (2007SC, 2007IR). There are important conclusions by Summerhill on the exceptional sample of institutional change or actually lack of change, public finance and financial repression in Brazil between 1822 an 1899, combining tools of economics, political science and history. During seven continuous decades, Brazil did not miss a single interest payment with government borrowing without repudiation of debt or default. What is really surprising is that Brazil borrowed by means of long-term bonds and even more surprising interest rates fell over time. The external debt of Brazil in 1870 was ₤41,275,961 and the domestic debt in the internal market was ₤25,708,711, or 62.3 percent of the total (Summerhill 2007IR, 73).
The experience of Brazil differed from that of Latin America (Summerhill 2007IR). During the six decades when Brazil borrowed without difficulty, Latin American countries becoming independent after 1820 engaged in total defaults, suffering hardship in borrowing abroad. The countries that borrowed again fell again in default during the nineteenth century. Venezuela defaulted in four occasions. Mexico defaulted in 1827, rescheduling its debt eight different times and servicing the debt sporadically. About 44 percent of Latin America’s sovereign debt was in default in 1855 and approximately 86 percent of total government loans defaulted in London originated in Spanish American borrowing countries.
External economies of commitment to secure private rights in sovereign credit would encourage development of private financial institutions, as postulated in classic work by North and Weingast (1989), Summerhill 2007IR, 22). This is how banking institutions critical to the Industrial Revolution were developed in England (Cameron 1967). The obstacle in Brazil found by Summerhill (2007IR) is that sovereign debt credibility was combined with financial repression. There was a break in Brazil of the chain of effects from protecting public borrowing, as in North and Weingast (1989), to development of private financial institutions. According to Pelaez 1976, 283) following Cameron:
“The banking law of 1860 placed severe restrictions on two basic modern economic institutions—the corporation and the commercial bank. The growth of the volume of bank credit was one of the most significant factors of financial intermediation and economic growth in the major trading countries of the gold standard group. But Brazil placed strong restrictions on the development of banking and intermediation functions, preventing the channeling of coffee savings into domestic industry at an earlier date.”
Brazil actually abandoned the gold standard during multiple financial crises in the nineteenth century, as it should have to protect domestic economic activity. Pelaez (1975, 447) finds similar experience in the first half of nineteenth-century Brazil:
“Brazil’s experience is particularly interesting in that in the period 1808-1851 there were three types of monetary systems. Between 1808 and 1829, there was only one government-related Bank of Brazil, enjoying a perfect monopoly of banking services. No new banks were established in the 1830s after the liquidation of the Bank of Brazil in 1829. During the coffee boom in the late 1830s and 1840s, a system of banks of issue, patterned after similar institutions in the industrial countries [Cameron 1967], supplied the financial services required in the first stage of modernization of the export economy.”
Financial crises in the advanced economies were transmitted to nineteenth-century Brazil by the arrival of a ship (Pelaez and Suzigan 1981). The explanation of those crises and the economy of Brazil requires knowledge and roles of institutions, economic policies and the financial system chosen by Brazil, in agreement with Bordo (2012Sep27).
The departing theoretical framework of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) is the plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988). Friedman (1988, 1) recalls “I was led to the model in the course of investigating the direction of influence between money and income. Did the common cyclical fluctuation in money and income reflect primarily the influence of money on income or of income on money?” Friedman (1964, 1988) finds useful for this purpose to analyze the relation between expansions and contractions. Analyzing the business cycle in the United States between 1870 and 1961, Friedman (1964, 15) found that “a large contraction in output tends to be followed on the average by a large business expansion; a mild contraction, by a mild expansion.” The depth of the contraction opens up more room in the movement toward full employment (Friedman 1964, 17):
“Output is viewed as bumping along the ceiling of maximum feasible output except that every now and then it is plucked down by a cyclical contraction. Given institutional rigidities and prices, the contraction takes in considerable measure the form of a decline in output. Since there is no physical limit to the decline short of zero output, the size of the decline in output can vary widely. When subsequent recovery sets in, it tends to return output to the ceiling; it cannot go beyond, so there is an upper limit to output and the amplitude of the expansion tends to be correlated with the amplitude of the contraction.”
Kim and Nelson (1999) test the asymmetric plucking model of Friedman (1964, 1988) relative to a symmetric model using reference cycles of the NBER and find evidence supporting the Friedman model. Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) analyze 27 cycles beginning in 1872, using various measures of financial crises while considering different regulatory and monetary regimes. The revealing conclusion of Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR, 2) is that:
“Our analysis of the data shows that steep expansions tend to follow deep contractions, though this depends heavily on when the recovery is measured. In contrast to much conventional wisdom, the stylized fact that deep contractions breed strong recoveries is particularly true when there is a financial crisis. In fact, on average, it is cycles without a financial crisis that show the weakest relation between contraction depth and recovery strength. For many configurations, the evidence for a robust bounce-back is stronger for cycles with financial crises than those without.”
The average rate of growth of real GDP in expansions after recessions with financial crises was 8 percent but only 6.9 percent on average for recessions without financial crises (Bordo 2012Sep27). Real GDP declined 12 percent in the Panic of 1907 and increased 13 percent in the recovery, consistent with the plucking model of Friedman (Bordo 2012Sep27). Bordo (2012Sep27) finds two probable explanations for the weak recovery during the current economic cycle: (1) collapse of United States housing; and (2) uncertainty originating in fiscal policy, regulation and structural changes. There are serious doubts if monetary policy is adequate to recover the economy under these conditions.
Lucas (2011May) estimates US economic growth in the long-term at 3 percent per year and about 2 percent per year in per capita terms. There are displacements from this trend caused by events such as wars and recessions but the economy then returns to trend. Historical US GDP data exhibit remarkable growth: Lucas (2011May) estimates an increase of US real income per person by a factor of 12 in the period from 1870 to 2010. The explanation by Lucas (2011May) of this remarkable growth experience is that government provided stability and education while elements of “free-market capitalism” were an important driver of long-term growth and prosperity. The analysis is sharpened by comparison with the long-term growth experience of G7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan) and Spain from 1870 to 2010. Countries benefitted from “common civilization” and “technology” to “catch up” with the early growth leaders of the US and UK, eventually growing at a faster rate. Significant part of this catch up occurred after World War II. Lucas (2011May) finds that the catch up stalled in the 1970s. The analysis of Lucas (2011May) is that the 20-40 percent gap that developed originated in differences in relative taxation and regulation that discouraged savings and work incentives in comparison with the US. A larger welfare and regulatory state, according to Lucas (2011May), could be the cause of the 20-40 percent gap. Cobet and Wilson (2002) provide estimates of output per hour and unit labor costs in national currency and US dollars for the US, Japan and Germany from 1950 to 2000 (see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 137-44). The average yearly rate of productivity change from 1950 to 2000 was 2.9 percent in the US, 6.3 percent for Japan and 4.7 percent for Germany while unit labor costs in USD increased at 2.6 percent in the US, 4.7 percent in Japan and 4.3 percent in Germany. From 1995 to 2000, output per hour increased at the average yearly rate of 4.6 percent in the US, 3.9 percent in Japan and 2.6 percent in Germany while unit labor costs in USD fell at minus 0.7 percent in the US, 4.3 percent in Japan and 7.5 percent in Germany. There was increase in productivity growth in Japan and France within the G7 in the second half of the 1990s but significantly lower than the acceleration of 1.3 percentage points per year in the US. Long-term economic growth and prosperity are measured by the key indicators of growth of real income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation. A refined concept would include real disposable income per capita, or what is earned per person after inflation and taxes.
Table IB-1 provides the data required for broader comparison of the cyclical expansions of IQ1983 to IVQ1985 and the current one from 2009 to 2012. First, in the 13 quarters from IQ1983 to IVQ1985, GDP increased 19.6 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 5.7 percent; real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 14.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 4.3 percent; RDPI per capita increased 11.5 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 3.4 percent; and population increased 2.7 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent. Second, in the 13 quarters of the current cyclical expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012, GDP increased 7.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 2.2 percent. In the 12 quarters of cyclical expansion real disposable personal income (RDPI) increased 5.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 1.6 percent; RDPI per capita increased 3.0 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.9 percent; and population increased 2.3 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent. Third, since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012, GDP increased 2.5 percent, or barely above the level before the recession. Since the beginning of the recession in IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012, real disposable personal income increased 3.4 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.7 percent; population increased 3.9 percent at the annual equivalent rate of 0.8 percent; and real disposable personal income per capita is 0.4 percent lower than the level before the recession. Real disposable personal income is the actual take home pay after inflation and taxes and real disposable income per capita is what is left per inhabitant. The current cyclical expansion is the worst in the period after World War II in terms of growth of economic activity and income. The United States grew during its history at high rates of per capita income that made its economy the largest in the world. That dynamism is disappearing. Bordo (2012 Sep27) and Bordo and Haubrich (2012DR) provide strong evidence that recoveries have been faster after deeper recessions and recessions with financial crises, casting serious doubts on the conventional explanation of weak growth during the current expansion allegedly because of the depth of the contraction from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 of 4.7 percent and the financial crisis.
Table IB-1, US, GDP, Real Disposable Personal Income, Real Disposable Income per Capita and Population in 1983-85 and 2007-2011, %
| # Quarters | ∆% | ∆% Annual Equivalent | |
| IQ1983 to IVQ1985 | 13 | ||
| GDP | 19.6 | 5.7 | |
| RDPI | 14.5 | 4.3 | |
| RDPI Per Capita | 11.5 | 3.4 | |
| Population | 2.7 | 0.8 | |
| IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012 | 13 | ||
| GDP | 7.5 | 2.2 | |
| RDPI | 5.4 | 1.6 | |
| RDPI per Capita | 3.0 | 0.9 | |
| Population | 2.3 | 0.7 | |
| IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | 20 | ||
| GDP | 2.5 | 0.5 | |
| RDPI | 3.4 | 0.7 | |
| RDPI per Capita | -0.4 | ||
| Population | 3.9 | 0.8 |
RDPI: Real Disposable Personal Income
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm
There are seven basic facts illustrating the current economic disaster of the United States: (1) GDP maintained trend growth in the entire business cycle from IQ1980 to IV1985, including contractions and expansions, but is well below trend in the entire business cycle from IVQ2007 to IIQ2012, including contractions and expansions; (2) per capita real disposable income exceeded trend growth in the 1980s but is substantially below trend in IIQ2012; (3) the number of employed persons increased in the 1980s but declined into IIQ2012; (4) the number of full-time employed persons increased in the 1980s but declined into IIIQ2012; (5) the number unemployed, unemployment rate and number employed part-time for economic reasons fell in the recovery from the recessions of the 1980s but not substantially in the recovery after IIQ2009; (6) wealth of households and nonprofit organizations soared in the 1980s but declined into IIIQ2012; and (7) gross private domestic investment increased sharply from IQ1980 to IVQ1985 but gross private domestic investment and private fixed investment have fallen sharply from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2007. There is a critical issue of whether the United States economy will be able in the future to attain again the level of activity and prosperity of projected trend growth. Growth at trend during the entire business cycles built the largest economy in the world but there may be an adverse, permanent weakness in United States economic performance and prosperity. Table IB-2 provides data for analysis of these five basic facts. The six blocks of Table IB-2 are separated initially after individual discussion of each one followed by the full Table IB-2.
1. Trend Growth.
i. As shown in Table IB-2, actual GDP grew cumulatively 17.7 percent from IQ1980 to IVQ1985, which is relatively close to what trend growth would have been at 18.5 percent. Rapid growth at 5.7 percent annual rate on average per quarter during the expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 erased the loss of GDP of 4.8 percent during the contraction and maintained trend growth at 3 percent over the entire cycle.
ii. In contrast, cumulative growth from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 was 2.5 percent while trend growth would have been 15.1 percent. GDP in IIIQ2012 at seasonally adjusted annual rate is estimated at $13,652.5 by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) (http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm) and would have been $15,338.2 billion, or $1,685.7 billion higher, had the economy grown at trend over the entire business cycle as it happened during the 1980s and throughout most of US history. There is $1.7 trillion of foregone GDP that would have been created as it occurred during past cyclical expansions, which explains why employment has not rebounded to even higher than before. There would not be recovery of full employment even with growth of 3 percent per year beginning immediately because the opportunity was lost to grow faster during the expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012 after the recession from IVQ2007 to IIQ2009. The United States has acquired a heavy social burden of unemployment and underemployment of 28.6 million people or 17.7 percent of the effective labor force (Section I, Table I-4 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html) that will not be significantly diminished even with return to growth of GDP of 3 percent per year because of growth of the labor force by new entrants. The US labor force grew from 142.583 million in 2000 to 153.124 million in 2007 or by 7.4 percent at the average yearly rate of 1.0 percent per year. The civilian noninstitutional population increased from 212.577 million in 2000 to 231.867 million in 2007 or 9.1 percent at the average yearly rate of 1.3 percent per year (data from http://www.bls.gov/data/). Data for the past five years cloud accuracy because of the number of people discouraged from seeking employment. The noninstitutional population of the United States increased from 231.867 million in 2007 to 239.618 million in 2011 or by 3.3 percent while the labor force increased from 153.124 million in 2007 to 153.617 million in 2011 or by 0.3 percent (data from http://www.bls.gov/data/). People ceased to seek jobs because they do not believe that there is a job available for them (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html ).
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | |
| GDP SAAR USD Billions | |
| IQ1980 | 5,903.4 |
| IVQ1985 | 6,950.0 |
| ∆% IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 17.7 |
| ∆% Trend Growth IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 18.5 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | |
| GDP SAAR USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 13,326.0 |
| IIIQ2012 | 13,652.5 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 Actual | 2.5 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 Trend | 15.1 |
2. Decline of Per Capita Real Disposable Income
i. In the entire business cycle from IQ1980 to IVQ1985, as shown in Table IB-2 trend growth of per capita real disposable income, or what is left per person after inflation and taxes, grew cumulatively 14.5 percent, which is close to what would have been trend growth of 12.1 percent.
ii. In contrast, in the entire business cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012, per capita real disposable income fell 0.4 percent while trend growth would have been 10.4 percent. Income available after inflation and taxes is lower than before the contraction after 13 consecutive quarters of GDP growth at mediocre rates relative to those prevailing during historical cyclical expansions.
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1980 Chained 2005 USD | 18,938 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ1985 Chained 2005 USD | 21,687 |
| ∆% IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 14.5 |
| ∆% Trend Growth | 12.1 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ2007 Chained 2005USD | 32,837 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IIIQ2012 Chained 2005 USD | 32,691 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -0.4 |
| ∆% Trend Growth | 10.4 |
3. Number of Employed Persons
i. As shown in Table IB-2, the number of employed persons increased over the entire business cycle from 98.527 million not seasonally adjusted (NSA) in IQ1980 to 107.819 million NSA in IVQ1985 or by 9.4 percent.
ii. In contrast, during the entire business cycle the number employed fell from 146.334 million in IVQ2007 to 143.202 million in IIIQ2012 or by 2.1 percent. There are 28.6 million persons unemployed or underemployed, which is 17.7 percent of the effective labor force (Section I, Table I-4 http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/twenty-eight-million-unemployed-or.html).
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 |
| Employed Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 98.527 |
| Employed Millions IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 107.819 |
| ∆% Employed IQ1980 to IV1985 | 9.4 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 |
| Employed Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 146.334 |
| Employed Millions IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 143.333 |
| ∆% Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -2.1 |
4. Number of Full-Time Employed Persons
i. As shown in Table IB-2, during the entire business cycle in the 1980s, including contractions and expansion, the number of employed full-time rose from 81.280 million NSA in IQ1980 to 88.757 million NSA in IVQ1985 or 9.2 percent.
ii. In contrast, during the entire current business cycle, including contraction and expansion, the number of persons employed full-time fell from 121.042 million in IVQ2007 to 115.678 million in IIIQ2012 or by minus 4.4 percent.
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 81.280 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 88.757 |
| ∆% Full-time Employed IQ1980 to IV1985 | 9.2 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 121.042 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 115.678 |
| ∆% Full-time Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -4.4 |
5. Unemployed, Unemployment Rate and Employed Part-time for Economic Reasons.
i. As shown in Table IIB-2 and in the following block, in the cycle from IQ1980 to IVQ1985: (a) the rate of unemployment was virtually the same at 6.7 percent in IQ1985 relative to 6.6 percent in IQ1980; (b) the number unemployed increased from 6.983 million in IQ1980 to 7.717 million in IVQ1985 or 10.5 percent; and (c) the number employed part-time for economic reasons increased 49.1 percent from 3.624 million in IQ1980 to 5.402 million in IVQ1985.
ii. In contrast, in the economic cycle from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012: (a) the rate of unemployment increased from 4.8 percent in IVQ2007 to 7.6 percent in IIIQ2012; (b) the number unemployed increased 59.3 percent from 7.371 million in IVQ2007 to 11.742 million in IIIQ2012; (c) the number employed part-time for economic reasons increased 70.7 percent from 4.750 million in IVQ2007 to 8.110 million in IIIQ2012; and (d) U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA increased from 8.7 percent in IVQ2007 to 14.2 percent in IIIQ2012.
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 |
| Unemployment Rate IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 6.6 |
| Unemployment Rate IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 6.7 |
| Unemployed IQ1980 Millions End of Quarter | 6.983 |
| Unemployed IV 1985 Millions End of Quarter | 7.717 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IQ1980 End of Quarter | 3.624 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IVQ1985 End of Quarter | 5.402 |
| ∆% | 49.1 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 |
| Unemployment Rate IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 4.8 |
| Unemployment Rate IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 7.6 |
| Unemployed IVQ2007 Millions End of Quarter | 7.371 |
| Unemployed IIIQ2009 Millions End of Quarter | 11.742 |
| ∆% | 59.3 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IVQ2007 Millions End of Quarter | 4.750 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IIIQ2009 End of Quarter | 8.110 |
| ∆% | 70.7 |
| U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA | |
| IVQ2007 | 8.7 |
| IIIQ2012 | 14.2 |
6. Wealth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations.
i. The comparison of net worth of households and nonprofit organizations in the entire economic cycle from IQ1980 (and also from IVQ1979) to IVQ1985 and from IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 is provided in the following block and in Table IB-2. Net worth of households and nonprofit organizations increased from $8,326.4 billion in IVQ1979 to $14,395.2 billion in IVQ1985 or 72.9 percent or 69.3 percent from $8,502.9 billion in IQ1980. The starting quarter does not bias the results. The US consumer price index not seasonally adjusted increased from 76.7 in Dec 1979 to 109.3 in Dec 1985 or 42.5 percent or 36.5 percent from 80.1 in Mar 1980 (using consumer price index data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics at http://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm). In terms of purchasing power measured by the consumer price index, real wealth of households and nonprofit organizations increased 21.3 percent in constant purchasing power from IVQ1979 to IVQ1985 or 24.0 percent from IQ1980.
ii. In contrast, as shown in Table IB-2, net worth of households and nonprofit organizations fell from $66,000.6 billion in IVQ2007 to $64,768.8 billion in IIIQ2012 by $1,231.8 billion or 1.9 percent. The US consumer price index was 210.036 in Dec 2007 and 231.407 in Sep 2012 for increase of 10.2 percent. In purchasing power of Dec 2007, wealth of households and nonprofit organizations is lower by 10.9 percent in Sep 2012 after 13 consecutive quarters of expansion from IIIQ2009 to IIIQ2012 relative to IVQ2007 when the recession began. The explanation is partly in the sharp decline of wealth of households and nonprofit organizations and partly in the mediocre growth rates of the cyclical expansion beginning in IIIQ2009. The average growth rate from IIIQ2009 to IIQ2012 has been 2.2 percent, which is substantially lower than the average of 6.2 percent in cyclical expansions after World War II and 5.7 percent in the expansion from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/mediocre-and-decelerating-united-states.html). The US missed the opportunity of high growth rates that has been available in past cyclical expansions. US wealth of households and nonprofit organizations grew from IVQ1945 at $710,125.9 million to IIIQ2009 at $64,768,835.3 million or increase of 9,020.8 percent. The consumer price index not seasonally adjusted was 18.2 in Dec 1945 jumping to 231.407 in Sep 2012 or 1,171.5 percent. There was a gigantic increase of US net worth of households and nonprofit organizations over 67 years with inflation adjusted increase of 617.3 percent. The combination of collapse of values of real estate and financial assets during the global recession of IVQ2007 to IIQ2009 caused sharp contraction of US household and nonprofit net worth. Recovery has been in stop-and-go fashion during the worst cyclical expansion in the 67 years when US GDP grew at 2.2 percent on average in 13 quarters between IIIQ2009 and IIIQ2012 in contrast with average 5.7 percent from IQ1983 to IVQ1985 and average 6.2 percent during cyclical expansions in those 67 years.
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | |
| Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions | |
| IVQ1979 | 8,326.4 |
| IVQ1985 | 14,395.2 |
| ∆ USD Billions | +6,068.8 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIQ2012 | |
| Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 66,000.6 |
| IIIQ2012 | 64,768.8 |
| ∆ USD Billions | -1,231.8 |
7. Gross Private Domestic Investment.
i. The comparison of gross private domestic investment in the entire economic cycles from IQ1980 to IV1985 and from IVQ2007 to IIQ2012 is provides in the following block and in Table IB-2. Gross private domestic investment increased from $778.3 billion in IQ1980 to $965.9 billion in IVQ1985 or by 24.1 percent.
ii In the current cycle, gross private domestic investment decreased from $2,123.6 billion in IVQ2007 to $1,928.8 billion in IIIQ2012, or decline by 9.2 percent. Private fixed investment fell from $2,111.5 billion in IVQ2007 to $1844.8 billion in IIIQ2012, or decline by 12.6 percent.
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | |
| Gross Private Domestic Investment USD 2005 Billions | |
| IQ1980 | 778.3 |
| IVQ1985 | 965.9 |
| ∆% | 24.1 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | |
| Gross Private Domestic Investment USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 2,123.6 |
| IIIQ2012 | 1,928.8 |
| ∆% | -9.2 |
| Private Fixed Investment USD 2005 Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 2,111.5 |
| IIIQ2012 | 1,844.8 |
| ∆% | -12.6 |
Table IB-2, US, GDP and Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita Actual and Trend Growth and Employment, 1980-1985 and 2007-2012, SAAR USD Billions, Millions of Persons and ∆%
| Period IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | |
| GDP SAAR USD Billions | |
| IQ1980 | 5,903.4 |
| IVQ1985 | 6,950.0 |
| ∆% IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 17.7 |
| ∆% Trend Growth IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 18.5 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IQ1980 Chained 2005 USD | 18,938 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ1985 Chained 2005 USD | 21,687 |
| ∆% IQ1980 to IVQ1985 | 14.5 |
| ∆% Trend Growth | 12.1 |
| Employed Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 98.527 |
| Employed Millions IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 107.819 |
| ∆% Employed IQ1980 to IV1985 | 9.4 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 81.280 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 88.757 |
| ∆% Full-time Employed IQ1980 to IV1985 | 9.2 |
| Unemployment Rate IQ1980 NSA End of Quarter | 6.6 |
| Unemployment Rate IV1985 NSA End of Quarter | 6.7 |
| Unemployed IQ1980 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 6.983 |
| Unemployed IV 1985 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 7.717 |
| ∆% | 11.9 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IVQ2007 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 4.750 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IIQ2009 NSA End of Quarter | 8.394 |
| ∆% | 76.7 |
| Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions | |
| IVQ1979 | 8,326.4 |
| IVQ1985 | 14,395.2 |
| ∆ USD Billions | +6,068.8 |
| Gross Private Domestic Investment USD 2005 Billions | |
| IQ1980 | 778.3 |
| IVQ1985 | 965.9 |
| ∆% | 24.1 |
| Period IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | |
| GDP SAAR USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 13,326.0 |
| IIIQ2012 | 13,652.5 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | 2.5 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 Trend Growth | 15.1 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IVQ2007 Chained 2005USD | 32,837 |
| Real Disposable Personal Income per Capita IIIQ2012 Chained 2005 USD | 32,691 |
| ∆% IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -0.4 |
| ∆% Trend Growth | 10.4 |
| Employed Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 146.334 |
| Employed Millions IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 143.333 |
| ∆% Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -2.1 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 121.042 |
| Employed Full-time Millions IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 115.678 |
| ∆% Full-time Employed IVQ2007 to IIIQ2012 | -4.4 |
| Unemployment Rate IVQ2007 NSA End of Quarter | 4.8 |
| Unemployment Rate IIIQ2012 NSA End of Quarter | 7.6 |
| Unemployed IVQ2007 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 7.371 |
| Unemployed IIIQ2012 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 11.742 |
| ∆% | 59.3 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons IVQ2007 Millions NSA End of Quarter | 4.750 |
| Employed Part-time Economic Reasons Millions IIIQ2009 NSA End of Quarter | 8.110 |
| ∆% | 70.7 |
| U6 Total Unemployed plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons as percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers NSA | |
| IVQ2007 | 8.7 |
| IIIQ2012 | 14.2 |
| Net Worth of Households and Nonprofit Organizations USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 66,000.6 |
| IIIQ2012 | 64,768.8 |
| ∆ USD Billions | -1,231.8 |
| Gross Private Domestic Investment USD Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 2,123.6 |
| IIIQ2012 | 1,928.8 |
| ∆% | -9.2 |
| Private Fixed Investment USD 2005 Billions | |
| IVQ2007 | 2,111.5 |
| IIIQ2012 | 1,844.8 |
| ∆% | -12.6 |
Note: GDP trend growth used is 3.0 percent per year and GDP per capita is 2.0 percent per year as estimated by Lucas (2011May) on data from 1870 to 2010.
Source: US Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_nipa.cfm US Bureau of Labor Statistics http://www.bls.gov/data/. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 2012Sep20. Flow of funds accounts of the United States. Washington, DC, Federal Reserve System.
II United States Housing Collapse. The objective of this section is to provide the latest data and analysis of US housing. Subsection IIA United New House Sales analyzes the collapse of US new house sales. Subsection IIB United States House Prices considers the latest available data on house prices. Subsection IIC Factors of US Housing Collapse provides the analysis of the causes of the housing crisis of the US.
IIA United States New House Sales. Data and other information continue to provide depressed conditions in the US housing market in a longer perspective with recent improvement at the margin. Table II-1 shows sales of new houses in the US at seasonally-adjusted annual equivalent rate (SAAR). House sales fell in nine of twenty three months from Jan 2011 to Sep 2012 but mostly concentrated in Jan-Feb 2011 and May-Aug 2011. In Jan-Apr 2012, house prices increased at the annual equivalent rate of 17.6 percent and at 9.4 percent in May-Oct 2012. There was significant strength in Sep-Dec 2011 with annual equivalent rate of 56.4 percent. The annual equivalent rate in May-Aug 2011 was minus 18.1 percent and minus 12.2 percent in Jan-Apr 2011 but after increase of 13.6 percent in Dec 2010.
Table II-1, US, Sales of New Houses at Seasonally-Adjusted (SA) Annual Equivalent Rate, Thousands and %
| SA Annual Rate | ∆% | |
| Nov 2012 | 377 | 4.4 |
| Oct | 361 | -3.5 |
| Sep | 374 | 1.9 |
| Aug | 367 | 0.3 |
| Jul | 366 | 1.7 |
| Jun | 360 | -2.4 |
| May | 369 | 3.1 |
| AE ∆% May-Nov | 9.4 | |
| Apr | 358 | 1.7 |
| Mar | 352 | -3.8 |
| Feb | 366 | 7.9 |
| Jan | 339 | 0.0 |
| AE ∆% Jan-Apr | 17.6 | |
| Dec 2011 | 339 | 3.7 |
| Nov | 327 | 4.1 |
| Oct | 314 | 2.6 |
| Sep | 306 | 4.8 |
| AE ∆% Sep-Dec | 56.4 | |
| Aug | 292 | -1.7 |
| Jul | 297 | -2.3 |
| Jun | 304 | -1.3 |
| May | 308 | -1.3 |
| AE ∆% May-Aug | -18.1 | |
| Apr | 312 | 3.7 |
| Mar | 301 | 10.3 |
| Feb | 273 | -11.4 |
| Jan | 308 | -5.5 |
| AE ∆% Jan-Apr | -12.2 | |
| Dec 2010 | 326 | 13.6 |
AE: Annual Equivalent
Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
There is additional information of the report of new house sales in Table II-2. The stock of unsold houses stabilized in Apr-Aug 2011 at average 6.6 monthly equivalent sales at current sales rates and then dropped to 4.7 in Jul-Sep 2012, increasing to 4.9 in Oct 2012 and returning to 4.7 in Nov 2012. Median and average house prices oscillate. In Nov 2012, median prices of new houses sold not seasonally adjusted (NSA) increased 3.7 percent but after decreasing revised 5.8 percent in Oct, decreasing 0.4 percent in Sep and increasing 6.7 percent in Aug. Average prices increased 10.1 percent in Nov 2012, fell 7.3 percent in Oct and 4.0 percent in Sep and increased 8.2 percent in Aug. Between Dec 2010 and Nov 2012, median prices increased 2.1 percent and average prices increased 2.7 percent. Median house prices increased 12.6 percent from Dec 2011 to Oct 2012 while average price houses increased 14.0 percent. Price increases concentrated in 2012. There are only seven months with price increases in both median and average house prices: Apr 2011 with 1.9 percent in median prices and 3.1 percent in average prices, Jun 2011 with 8.2 percent in median prices and 3.9 percent in average prices, Oct 2011 with 3.6 percent in median prices and 1.1 percent in average prices, Dec 2011 with 2.0 percent in median prices and 5.2 percent in average prices, Jan 2012 with 1.4 percent in median prices and 1.1 percent in average prices, Feb 2012 with 8.2 percent in median prices and 3.1 percent in average prices, Jul with 2.1 percent in median and 3.9 percent in average and Aug 2012 with 7.0 percent in median prices and 6.6 percent in average prices. Median prices of new houses sold in the US fell in eleven of the 22 months from Jan 2011 to Oct 2012 and average prices fell in twelve months.
Table II-2, US, New House Stocks and Median and Average New Homes Sales Price
| Unsold* | Median | Month | Average New House Sales Price USD | Month | |
| Nov 2012 | 4.7 | 246,200 | 3.7 | 299,700 | 10.1 |
| Oct | 4.9 | 237,500 | -5.8 | 272,200 | -7.2 |
| Sep | 4.7 | 252,100 | -0.4 | 293,300 | -4.0 |
| Aug | 4.7 | 253,200 | 6.7 | 305,500 | 8.2 |
| Jul | 4.7 | 237,400 | 2.1 | 282,300 | 3.9 |
| Jun | 4.8 | 232,600 | -2.8 | 271,800 | -3.2 |
| May | 4.7 | 239,200 | 1.2 | 280,900 | -2.4 |
| Apr | 4.9 | 236,400 | -1.4 | 287,900 | 1.5 |
| Mar | 4.9 | 239,800 | 0.0 | 283,600 | 3.5 |
| Feb | 4.8 | 239,900 | 8.2 | 274,000 | 3.1 |
| Jan | 5.3 | 221,700 | 1.4 | 265,700 | 1.1 |
| Dec 2011 | 5.4 | 218,600 | 2.0 | 262,900 | 5.2 |
| Nov | 5.7 | 214,300 | -4.7 | 250,000 | -3.2 |
| Oct | 6.1 | 224,800 | 3.6 | 258,300 | 1.1 |
| Sep | 6.3 | 217,000 | -1.2 | 255,400 | -1.5 |
| Aug | 6.6 | 219,600 | -4.5 | 259,300 | -4.1 |
| Jul | 6.7 | 229,900 | -4.3 | 270,300 | -1.0 |
| Jun | 6.6 | 240,200 | 8.2 | 273,100 | 3.9 |
| May | 6.6 | 222,000 | -1.2 | 262,700 | -2.3 |
| Apr | 6.7 | 224,700 | 1.9 | 268,900 | 3.1 |
| Mar | 7.1 | 220,500 | 0.2 | 260,800 | -0.8 |
| Feb | 8.0 | 220,100 | -8.3 | 262,800 | -4.7 |
| Jan | 7.3 | 240,100 | -0.5 | 275,700 | -5.5 |
| Dec 2010 | 7.0 | 241,200 | 9.8 | 291,700 | 3.5 |
*Percent of new houses for sale relative to houses sold
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
The depressed level of residential construction and new house sales in the US is evident in Table II-3 providing new house sales not seasonally adjusted in Jan-Nov of various years. Sales of new houses in Jan-Nov 2012 are substantially lower than in any year between 1963 and 2012 with the exception of 2010 and 2011. There are only two increases of 20.1 percent between Jan-Nov 2011 and Jan-Nov 2012 and 12.7 percent from Jan-Nov 2010 to Jan-Nov 2012. Sales of new houses in Jan-Nov 2012 are lower by 3.4 percent relative to Jan-Nov 2009, 26.4 percent relative to 2008, 53.8 percent relative to 2007, 65.5 percent relative to 2006 and 71.7 percent relative to 2005. The housing boom peaked in 2005 and 2006 when increases in fed funds rates to 5.25 percent in Jun 2006 from 1.0 percent in Jun 2004 affected subprime mortgages that were programmed for refinancing in two or three years on the expectation that price increases forever would raise home equity. Higher home equity would permit refinancing under feasible mortgages incorporating full payment of principal and interest (Gorton 2009EFM; see other references in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/causes-of-2007-creditdollar-crisis.html). Sales of new houses in Jan-Sep 2012 relative to the same period in 2004 fell 69.8 percent and 66.6 percent relative to the same period in 2003. Similar percentage declines are also observed for 2012 relative to years from 2000 to 2004. Sales of new houses in Jan-Nov 2012 fell 45.5 per cent relative to the same period in 1995. The population of the US was 179.3 million in 1960 and 281.4 million in 2000 (Hobbs and Stoops 2002, 16). Detailed historical census reports are available from the US Census Bureau at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/hiscendata.html). The US population reached 308.7 million in 2010 (http://2010.census.gov/2010census/data/). The US population increased by 129.4 million from 1960 to 2010 or 72.2 percent. The final row of Table II-3 reveals catastrophic data: sales of new houses in Jan-Nov 2012 of 338 thousand units are lower by 36.1 percent relative to 529 thousand units houses sold in Jan-Nov 1963, the first year when data become available, while population increased 72.2 percent.
Table II-3, US, Sales of New Houses Not Seasonally Adjusted, Thousands and %
| Not Seasonally Adjusted Thousands | |
| Jan-Nov 2012 | 338 |
| Jan-Nov 2011 | 282 |
| ∆% | 20.1* |
| Jan-Nov 2010 | 300 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | 12.7 |
| Jan-Nov 2009 | 350 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -3.4 |
| Jan-Nov 2008 | 459 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -26.4 |
| Jan-Nov 2007 | 732 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -53.8 |
| Jan-Nov 2006 | 980 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/Jan-Nov 2006 | -65.5 |
| Jan-Nov 2005 | 1,196 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/Jan-Nov 2005 | -71.7 |
| Jan-Nov 2004 | 1,120 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/Jan-Nov 2004 | -69.8 |
| Jan-Nov 2003 | 1,011 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -66.6 |
| Jan-Nov 2002 | 903 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -62.6 |
| Jan-Nov 2001 | 842 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -59.9 |
| Jan-Nov 2000 | 812 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -58.4 |
| Jan-Nov 1995 | 620 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -45.5 |
| Jan-Nov 1963 | 529 |
| ∆% Jan-Nov 2012/ | -36.1 |
*Computed using unrounded data
Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Table II-4 provides the entire available annual series of new house sales from 1963 to 2011. The revised level of 306 thousand new houses sold in 2011 is the lowest since 560,000 in 1963 in the 48 years of available data. In that period, the population of the US increased 129.4 million from 179.3 million in 1960 to 308.7 million in 2010, or 72.2 percent. In fact, there is no year from 1963 to 2011 in Table II-4 with sales of new houses below 400 thousand with the exception of the immediately preceding years of 2009 and 2010.
Table II-4, US, New Houses Sold, NSA Thousands
| 1963 | 560 |
| 1964 | 565 |
| 1965 | 575 |
| 1966 | 461 |
| 1967 | 487 |
| 1968 | 490 |
| 1969 | 448 |
| 1970 | 485 |
| 1971 | 656 |
| 1972 | 718 |
| 1973 | 634 |
| 1974 | 519 |
| 1975 | 549 |
| 1976 | 646 |
| 1977 | 819 |
| 1978 | 817 |
| 1979 | 709 |
| 1980 | 545 |
| 1981 | 436 |
| 1982 | 412 |
| 1983 | 623 |
| 1984 | 639 |
| 1985 | 688 |
| 1986 | 750 |
| 1987 | 671 |
| 1988 | 676 |
| 1989 | 650 |
| 1990 | 534 |
| 1991 | 509 |
| 1992 | 610 |
| 1993 | 666 |
| 1994 | 670 |
| 1995 | 667 |
| 1996 | 757 |
| 1997 | 804 |
| 1998 | 886 |
| 1999 | 880 |
| 2000 | 877 |
| 2001 | 908 |
| 2002 | 973 |
| 2003 | 1,086 |
| 2004 | 1,203 |
| 2005 | 1,283 |
| 2006 | 1,051 |
| 2007 | 776 |
| 2008 | 485 |
| 2009 | 375 |
| 2010 | 323 |
| 2011 | 306 |
Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Chart II-1 of the US Bureau of the Census shows the sharp decline of sales of new houses in the US. Sales rose temporarily until about mid 2010 but then declined to a lower plateau.
Chart II-1, US, New One-Family Houses Sold in the US, SAAR (Seasonally-Adjusted Annual Rate)
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/briefrm/esbr/www/esbr051.html
Chart II-2 of the US Bureau of the Census provides the entire monthly sample of new houses sold in the US between Jan 1963 and Sep 2012 without seasonal adjustment. The series is almost stationary until the 1990s. There is sharp upward trend from the early 1990s to 2005-2006 after which new single-family houses sold collapse to levels below those in the beginning of the series in the 1960s.
Chart II-2, US, New Single-family Houses Sold, NSA, 1963-2012
Source: US Census Bureau
Source: US Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Percentage changes and average rates of growth of new house sales for selected periods are shown in Table II-5. The percentage change of new house sales from 1963 to 2011 is minus 45.4 percent. Between 1991 and 2001, sales of new houses rose 78.4 percent at the average yearly rate of 5.9 percent. Between 1995 and 2005 sales of new houses increased 92.4 percent at the yearly rate of 6.8 percent. There are similar rates in all years from 2000 to 2004. The boom in housing construction and sales began in the 1980s and 1990s. The collapse of real estate culminated several decades of housing subsidies and policies to lower mortgage rates and borrowing terms (Pelaez and Pelaez, Financial Regulation after the Global Recession (2009b), 42-8). Sales of new houses sold in 2011 fell 54.1 percent relative to the same period in 1995.
Table II-5, US, Percentage Change and Average Yearly Rate of Growth of Sales of New One-Family Houses
| ∆% | Average Yearly % Rate | |
| 1963-2011 | -45.4 | NA |
| 1991-2001 | 78.4 | 5.9 |
| 1995-2005 | 92.4 | 6.8 |
| 2000-2005 | 46.3 | 7.9 |
| 1995-2011 | -54.1 | NA |
| 2000-2011 | -65.1 | NA |
| 2005-2011 | -76.1 | NA |
NA: Not Applicable
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
The available historical annual data of median and average prices of new houses sold in the US between 1963 and 2010 is provided in Table II-6. On a yearly basis, median and average prices reached a peak in 2007 and then fell substantially.
Table II-6, US, Median and Average Prices of New Houses Sold, Annual Data
| Year | Median | Average |
| 1963 | $18,000 | $19,300 |
| 1964 | $18,900 | $20,500 |
| 1965 | $20,000 | $21,500 |
| 1966 | $21,400 | $23,300 |
| 1967 | $22,700 | $24,600 |
| 1968 | $24,700 | $26,600 |
| 1969 | $25,600 | $27,900 |
| 1970 | $23,400 | $26,600 |
| 1971 | $25,200 | $28,300 |
| 1972 | $27,600 | $30,500 |
| 1973 | $32,500 | $35,500 |
| 1974 | $35,900 | $38,900 |
| 1975 | $39,300 | $42,600 |
| 1976 | $44,200 | $48,000 |
| 1977 | $48,800 | $54,200 |
| 1978 | $55,700 | $62,500 |
| 1979 | $62,900 | $71,800 |
| 1980 | $64,600 | $76,400 |
| 1981 | $68,900 | $83,000 |
| 1982 | $69,300 | $83,900 |
| 1983 | $75,300 | $89,800 |
| 1984 | $79,900 | $97,600 |
| 1985 | $84,300 | $100,800 |
| 1986 | $92,000 | $111,900 |
| 1987 | $104,500 | $127,200 |
| 1988 | $112,500 | $138,300 |
| 1989 | $120,000 | $148,800 |
| 1990 | $122,900 | $149,800 |
| 1991 | $120,000 | $147,200 |
| 1992 | $121,500 | $144,100 |
| 1993 | $126,500 | $147,700 |
| 1994 | $130,000 | $154,500 |
| 1995 | $133,900 | $158,700 |
| 1996 | $140,000 | $166,400 |
| 1997 | $146,000 | $176,200 |
| 1998 | $152,500 | $181,900 |
| 1999 | $161,000 | $195,600 |
| 2000 | $169,000 | $207,000 |
| 2001 | $175,200 | $213,200 |
| 2002 | $187,600 | $228,700 |
| 2003 | $195,000 | $246,300 |
| 2004 | $221,000 | $274,500 |
| 2005 | $240,900 | $297,000 |
| 2006 | $246,500 | $305,900 |
| 2007 | $247,900 | $313,600 |
| 2008 | $232,100 | $292,600 |
| 2009 | $216,700 | $270,900 |
| 2010 | $221,800 | $272,900 |
| 2011 | $227,200 | $267,900 |
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Percentage changes of median and average prices of new houses sold in selected years are shown in Table II-7. Prices rose sharply between 2000 and 2005. In fact, prices in 2011 are higher than in 2000. Between 2006 and 2011, median prices of new houses sold fell 7.8 percent and average prices fell 12.4 percent. Between 2010 and 2011, median prices increased 2.4 percent and average prices fell 1.8 percent.
Table II-7, US, Percentage Change of New Houses Median and Average Prices, NSA, ∆%
| Median New | Average New Home Sales Prices ∆% | |
| ∆% 2000 to 2003 | 15.4 | 18.9 |
| ∆% 2000 to 2005 | 42.5 | 43.5 |
| ∆% 2000 to 2011 | 34.4 | 29.4 |
| ∆% 2005 to 2011 | -5.7 | -9.8 |
| ∆% 2000 to 2006 | 45.9 | 47.8 |
| ∆% 2006 to 2011 | -7.8 | -12.4 |
| ∆% 2009 to 2011 | 4.8 | -1.1 |
| ∆% 2010 to 2011 | 2.4 | -1.8 |
Source: http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Chart II-3 of the US Census Bureau provides the entire series of new single-family sales median prices from Jan 1963 to Sep 2012. There is long-term sharp upward trend with few declines until the current collapse. Median prices increased sharply during the Great Inflation of the 1960s and 1970s and paused during the savings and loans crisis of the late 1980s and the recession of 1991. Housing subsidies throughout the 1990s caused sharp upward trend of median new house prices that accelerated after the fed funds rate of 1 percent from 2003 to 2004. There was sharp reduction of prices after 2006 with recovery recently toward earlier prices.
Chart II-3, US, Median Sales Price of New Single-family Houses Sold, US Dollars, NSA, 1963-2012
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
Chart II-4 of the US Census Bureau provides average prices of new houses sold from the mid 1970s to Sep 2012. There is similar behavior as with median prices of new houses sold in Chart II-3. The only stress occurred in price pauses during the savings and loans crisis of the late 1980s and the collapse after 2006 with recent recovery.
Chart II-4, US, Average Sales Price of New Single-family Houses Sold, US Dollars, NSA, 1975-2012
Source: US Census Bureau
http://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/
IIB United States House Prices. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, provides the FHFA House Price Index (HPI) that “is calculated using home sales price information from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-acquired mortgages” (http://fhfa.gov/webfiles/24216/q22012hpi.pdf 1). Table IIB-1 provides the FHFA HPI for purchases only, which shows behavior similar to that of the Case-Shiller index but with lower magnitudes. House prices catapulted from 2000 to 2003, 2005 and 2006. From IIIQ2000 to IIIQ2006, the index for the US as a whole rose 57.4 percent, with 68.6 percent for New England, 75.7 percent for Middle Atlantic, 71.9 percent for South Atlantic but only by 32.5 percent for East South Central. Prices fell relative to 2012 for all years from 2005 to 2007. Prices for the US increased 0.5 in IIIQ2012 relative to IIIQ2010 and 4.1 percent from IIIQ2011 to IIIQ2012. From IIIQ2000 to IIIQ2011, prices rose for the US and the four regions in Table IIB-1.
Table IIB-1, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only NSA ∆%
| United States | New England | Middle Atlantic | South Atlantic | East South Central | |
| 3Q2000 | 23.5 | 40.4 | 35.4 | 25.1 | 10.7 |
| 3Q2000 | 50.2 | 69.7 | 68.8 | 60.7 | 23.7 |
| 3Q2000 to | 57.4 | 68.6 | 75.7 | 71.9 | 32.5 |
| 3Q2005 t0 | -11.1 | -13.5 | -4.9 | -16.0 | 2.9 |
| 3Q2006 | -15.1 | -13.0 | -8.7 | -21.5 | -3.9 |
| 3Q2007 to | -15.0 | -11.5 | -9.5 | -21.4 | -6.9 |
| 3Q2010 to | 0.5 | -2.3 | -2.5 | 0.8 | 0.0 |
| 3Q2011 to | 4.1 | 0.0 | -0.3 | 4.7 | 2.6 |
| 3Q2000 to | 33.6 | 46.7 | 60.5 | 34.9 | 27.3 |
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency http://fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=14
Data of the FHFA HPI for the remaining US regions are provided in Table IIB-2. Behavior is not very different than in Table IIB-1 with the exception of East North Central. House prices in the Pacific region doubled between 2000 and 2006. Although prices of houses declined sharply from 2005 to 2012, there was still appreciation relative to 2000.
Table IIB-2, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only NSA ∆%
| West South Central | West North Central | East North Central | Mountain | Pacific | |
| 3Q2000 | 11.6 | 18.3 | 14.5 | 18.4 | 42.5 |
| 3Q2000 | 22.9 | 31.3 | 24.4 | 55.4 | 109.3 |
| 3Q2000 to 3Q2006 | 31.5 | 35.8 | 26.0 | 69.3 | 117.9 |
| 3Q2005 to | 15.0 | -2.3 | -12.8 | -15.6 | -32.2 |
| 3Q2006 | 7.5 | -5.5 | -13.9 | -22.6 | -34.8 |
| 3Q2007 to | 2.6 | -6.4 | -12.2 | -23.5 | -31.0 |
| 3Q2010 to | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 3.9 | -0.8 |
| 3Q2011 to | 5.1 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 10.6 | 6.4 |
| 3Q2000 to 3Q2012 | 41.3 | 28.3 | 8.4 | 31.1 | 42.0 |
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency http://fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=14
Chart IIB-1 of the Federal Housing Finance Agency shows the Housing Price Index four-quarter price change from IIIQ2001 to IIIQ2012. House prices appreciated sharply from 1998 to 2005 and then fell rapidly. Recovery began already after IIQ2008 but there was another decline after IIIQ2010. The rate of decline improved in the second half of 2011 and into 2012 with movement into positive territory in IIQ2012 and IIIQ2012.
Chart IIB-1, US, Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index Four Quarter Price Change
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency
http://fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=14
Monthly and 12-month percentage changes of the FHFA House Price Index are provided in Table IIB-3. Percentage monthly increases of the FHFA index were positive from Apr to Jul 2011 while 12 months percentage changes improved steadily from more or equal to minus 6 percent in Mar to May 2011 to minus 4.4 percent in Jun 2011. The FHFA house price index fell 0.9 percent in Oct 2011 and fell 3.2 percent in the 12 months ending in Oct. There was significant recovery in Nov 2012 with increase in the house price index of 0.7 percent and reduction of the 12-month rate of decline to 2.2 percent. The house price index rose 0.3 percent in Dec 2011 and the 12-month percentage change fell to minus 1.3 percent. There was further improvement with revised decline of 0.4 percent in Jan 2012 and decline of the 12-month percentage change to minus 1.0 percent. The index changed to positive change of 0.3 percent in Feb 2012 and increase of 0.3 percent in the 12 months ending in Feb 2012. There was strong improvement in Mar 2012 with gain in prices of 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent in 12 months. The house price index of FHFA increased 0.7 percent in Apr 2012 and 3.0 percent in 12 months and improvement continued with increase of 0.7 percent in May 2012 and 3.8 percent in the 12 months ending in May 2012. Improvement consolidated with increase of 0.6 percent in Jun 2012 and 3.9 percent in 12 months. In Jul 2012, the house price index increased 0.1 percent and 3.8 percent in 12 months. Strong increase of 0.4 percent in Aug 2012 pulled the 12-month change to 4.5 percent. There was another increase of 0.5 percent in Oct and 5.6 percent in 12 months.
Table IIB-3, US, FHFA House Price Index Purchases Only SA. Month and NSA 12-Month ∆%
| Month ∆% SA | 12 Month ∆% NSA | |
| Oct 2012 | 0.5 | 5.6 |
| Sep | 0.0 | 4.1 |
| Aug | 0.4 | 4.5 |
| Jul | 0.1 | 3.8 |
| Jun | 0.6 | 3.9 |
| May | 0.7 | 3.8 |
| Apr | 0.7 | 3.0 |
| Mar | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| Feb | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Jan | -0.4 | -1.0 |
| Dec 2011 | 0.3 | -1.3 |
| Nov | 0.7 | -2.2 |
| Oct | -0.9 | -3.2 |
| Sep | 0.4 | -2.4 |
| Aug | -0.3 | -3.9 |
| Jul | 0.2 | -3.6 |
| Jun | 0.5 | -4.4 |
| May | 0.0 | -6.0 |
| Apr | 0.2 | -5.9 |
| Mar | -0.6 | -6.0 |
| Feb | -1.1 | -5.2 |
| Jan | -0.7 | -4.7 |
| Dec 2010 | -4.0 | |
| Dec 2009 | -1.9 | |
| Dec 2008 | -9.8 | |
| Dec 2007 | -3.1 | |
| Dec 2006 | 2.6 | |
| Dec 2005 | 9.8 | |
| Dec 2004 | 10.2 | |
| Dec 2003 | 8.0 | |
| Dec 2002 | 7.8 | |
| Dec 2001 | 6.7 | |
| Dec 2000 | 7.2 | |
| Dec 1999 | 6.2 | |
| Dec 1998 | 5.9 | |
| Dec 1997 | 3.4 | |
| Dec 1996 | 2.8 | |
| Dec 1995 | 2.9 | |
| Dec 1994 | 2.6 | |
| Dec 1993 | 3.1 | |
| Dec 1992 | 2.1 |
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency http://fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=14
The bottom part of Table IIB-4 provides 12-month percentage changes of the FHFA house price index since 1992 when data become available for 1991. Table IIB-4 provides percentage changes and average rates of percent change per year for various periods. Between 1992 and 2011, the FHFA house price index increased 74.8 percent at the yearly average rate of 3.0 percent. In the period 1992-2000, the FHFA house price index increased 39.4 percent at the average yearly rate of 4.2 percent. The rate of price increase accelerated to 7.5 percent in the period 2000-2003 and to 8.5 percent in 2000-2005 and 7.5 percent in 2000-2006. At the margin the average rate jumped to 10.0 percent in 2003-2005 and 7.5 percent in 2003-2006. House prices measured by the FHFA house price index declined 18.7 percent between 2006 and 2011 and 16.6 percent between 2005 and 2011.
Table IIB-4, US, FHFA House Price Index, Percentage Change and Average Rate of Percentage Change per Year, Selected Dates 1992-2011
| Dec | ∆% | Average ∆% per Year |
| 1992-2011 | 74.8 | 3.0 |
| 1992-2000 | 39.4 | 4.2 |
| 2000-2003 | 24.3 | 7.5 |
| 2000-2005 | 50.4 | 8.5 |
| 2003-2005 | 21.0 | 10.0 |
| 2005-2011 | -16.6 | NA |
| 2000-2006 | 54.3 | 7.5 |
| 2003-2006 | 24.2 | 7.5 |
| 2006-2011 | -18.7 | NA |
Source: Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency http://fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=14
Table IIB-5 shows the euphoria of prices during the housing boom and the subsequent decline. House prices rose 96.0 percent in the 10-city composite of the Case-Shiller home price index and 81.2 percent in the 20-city composite between Oct 2000 and Oct 2005. Prices rose around 100 percent from Oct 2000 to Oct 2006, increasing 101.1 percent for the 10-city composite and 86.7 percent for the 20-city composite. House prices rose 38.9 percent between Oct 2003 and Oct 2005 for the 10-city composite and 34.9 percent for the 20-city composite propelled by low fed funds rates of 1.0 percent between Jun 2003 and Jun 2004 and then only increasing by 0.25 basis points at every meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) until Jun 2006, reaching 5.25 percent. Simultaneously, the suspension of auctions of the 30-year Treasury bond caused decline of yields of mortgage-backed securities with intended decrease in mortgage rates. Similarly, between Oct 2003 and Oct 2006 the 10-city index gained 42.5 percent and the 20-city index increased 38.9 percent. House prices have fallen from Oct 2006 to Oct 2012 by 29.4 percent for the 10-city composite and 28.9 percent for the 20-city composite. Measuring house prices is quite difficult because of the lack of homogeneity that is typical of standardized commodities. In the 12 months ending in Oct 2012, house prices increased 3.4 percent in the 10-city composite and increased 4.3 percent in the 20-city composite. Table IIB-5 also shows that house prices increased 42.1 percent between Oct 2000 and Oct 2012 for the 10-city composite and increased 32.8 percent for the 20-city composite. House prices are close to the lowest level since peaks during the boom before the financial crisis and global recession. The 10-city composite fell 29.8 percent from the peak in Jun 2006 to Oct 2012 and the 20-city composite fell 29.3 percent from the peak in Jul 2006 to Sep 2012. The final part of Table IIB-5 provides average annual percentage rates of growth of the house price indexes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller. The average annual growth rate between Dec 1987 and Dec 2011 for the 10-city composite was 3.2 percent. Data for the 20-city composite are available only beginning in Jan 2000. House prices accelerated in the 1990s with the average rate of the 10-city composite of 5.0 percent between Dec 1992 and Dec 2000 while the average rate for the period Dec 1987 to Dec 2000 was 3.8 percent. Although the global recession affecting the US between IVQ2007 (Dec) and IIQ2009 (Jun) caused decline of house prices of slightly above 30 percent, the average annual growth rate of the 10-city composite between Dec 2000 and Dec 2011 was 2.5 percent while the rate of the 20-city composite was 1.9 percent.
Table IIB-5, US, Percentage Changes of Standard & Poor’s Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%
| 10-City Composite | 20-City Composite | |
| ∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2003 | 41.1 | 34.3 |
| ∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2005 | 96.0 | 81.2 |
| ∆% Oct 2003 to Oct 2005 | 38.9 | 34.9 |
| ∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2006 | 101.1 | 86.7 |
| ∆% Oct 2003 to Oct 2006 | 42.5 | 38.9 |
| ∆% Oct 2005 to Oct 2012 | -27.5 | -26.7 |
| ∆% Oct 2006 to Oct 2012 | -29.4 | -28.9 |
| ∆% Oct 2009 to Oct 2012 | 0.1 | -0.3 |
| ∆% Oct 2010 to Oct 2012 | -0.1 | 0.6 |
| ∆% Oct 2011 to Oct 2012 | 3.4 | 4.3 |
| ∆% Oct 2000 to Oct 2012 | 42.1 | 32.8 |
| ∆% Peak Jun 2006 Oct 2012 | -29.8 | |
| ∆% Peak Jul 2006 Oct 2012 | -29.3 | |
| Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2011 | 3.2 | NA |
| Average ∆% Dec 1987-Dec 2000 | 3.8 | NA |
| Average ∆% Dec 1992-Dec 2000 | 5.0 | NA |
| Average ∆% Dec 2000-Dec 2011 | 2.5 | 1.9 |
With the exception of Apr 2011, house prices seasonally-adjusted declined in every month for both the 10-city and 20-city Case-Shiller composites from Dec 2010 to Jan 2012, as shown in Table IIB-6. The most important seasonal factor in house prices is school changes for wealthier homeowners with more expensive houses. Without seasonal adjustment, house prices fell from Dec 2010 throughout Mar 2011 and then increased in every month from Apr to Aug 2011 but fell in every month from Sep 2011 to Feb 2012. The not seasonally adjusted index increases from Apr 2012 to Sep 2012 for both the 10- and 20-city composites while the seasonally adjusted index also increases in every month from Apr 2012 to Sep 2012. The index without seasonal adjustment fell 0.1 percent in Oct 2012 for both composites while the seasonally-adjusted index increased 0.6 percent for the 10-city composite and 0.7 percent for the 20-city composite. Declining house prices cause multiple adverse effects of which two are quite evident. (1) There is a disincentive to buy houses in continuing price declines. (2) More mortgages could be losing fair market value relative to mortgage debt. Another possibility is a wealth effect that consumers restrain purchases because of the decline of their net worth in houses.
Table IIB-6, US, Monthly Percentage Change of S&P Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, Seasonally Adjusted and Not Seasonally Adjusted, ∆%
| 10-City Composite SA | 10-City Composite NSA | 20-City Composite SA | 20-City Composite NSA | |
| Oct 2012 | 0.6 | -0.1 | 0.7 | -0.1 |
| Sep | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| Aug | 0.4 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 |
| Jul | 0.2 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 1.6 |
| Jun | 0.9 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 2.3 |
| May | 0.9 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 2.4 |
| Apr | 0.8 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.4 |
| Mar | 0.5 | -0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Feb | 0.1 | -0.9 | 0.2 | -0.8 |
| Jan | -0.2 | -1.1 | -0.1 | -1.0 |
| Dec 2011 | -0.5 | -1.2 | -0.4 | -1.2 |
| Nov | -0.6 | -1.4 | -0.6 | -1.3 |
| Oct | -0.7 | -1.3 | -0.7 | -1.3 |
| Sep | -0.5 | -0.6 | -0.6 | -0.7 |
| Aug | -0.4 | 0.1 | -0.4 | 0.1 |
| Jul | -0.3 | 0.9 | -0.2 | 1.0 |
| Jun | -0.2 | 1.0 | -0.1 | 1.2 |
| May | -0.2 | 1.0 | -0.2 | 1.0 |
| Apr | 0.0 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
| Mar | -0.3 | -1.0 | -0.6 | -1.0 |
| Feb | -0.3 | -1.3 | -0.3 | -1.2 |
| Jan | -0.3 | -1.1 | -0.2 | -1.1 |
| Dec 2010 | -0.2 | -0.9 | -0.2 | -0.9 |
III World Financial Turbulence. Financial markets are being shocked by multiple factors including (1) world economic slowdown; (2) slowing growth in China with political development and slowing growth in Japan and world trade; (3) slow growth propelled by savings/investment reduction in the US with high unemployment/underemployment, falling wages, hiring collapse, contraction of real private fixed investment, decline of wealth of households over the business cycle by 10.9 percent adjusted for inflation while growing 617.2 percent adjusted for inflation from IVQ1945 to IIIQ2012 and unsustainable fiscal deficit/debt threatening prosperity that can cause risk premium on Treasury debt with Himalayan interest rate hikes; and (3) the outcome of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe. This section provides current data and analysis. Subsection IIIA Financial Risks provides analysis of the evolution of valuations of risk financial assets during the week. There are various appendixes for convenience of reference of material related to the euro area debt crisis. Some of this material is updated in Subsection IIIA when new data are available and then maintained in the appendixes for future reference until updated again in Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIB Appendix on Safe Haven Currencies discusses arguments and measures of currency intervention and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact provides analysis of the restructuring of the fiscal affairs of the European Union in the agreement of European leaders reached on Dec 9, 2011 and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Subsection IIID Appendix on European Central Bank Large Scale Lender of Last Resort considers the policies of the European Central Bank and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment. Appendix IIIE Euro Zone Survival Risk analyzes the threats to survival of the European Monetary Union and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation provides more technical analysis and is available following Subsection IIIA. Subsection IIIG Appendix on Deficit Financing of Growth and the Debt Crisis provides analysis of proposals to finance growth with budget deficits together with experience of the economic history of Brazil and is available in the Appendixes section at the end of the blog comment.
IIIA Financial Risks. The past half year has been characterized by financial turbulence, attaining unusual magnitude in recent months. Table III-1, updated with every comment in this blog, provides beginning values on Fr Dec 21 and daily values throughout the week ending on Dec 28 of various financial assets. Section VI Valuation of Risk Financial Assets provides a set of more complete values. All data are for New York time at 5 PM. The first column provides the value on Fri Dec 21 and the percentage change in that prior week below the label of the financial risk asset. For example, the first column “Fri Dec 21, 2012”, first row “USD/EUR 1.3189 -0.2 %,” provides the information that the US dollar (USD) depreciated 0.2 percent to USD 1.3189/EUR in the week ending on Fri Dec 21 relative to the exchange rate on Fri Dec 14. The first five asset rows provide five key exchange rates versus the dollar and the percentage cumulative appreciation (positive change or no sign) or depreciation (negative change or negative sign). Positive changes constitute appreciation of the relevant exchange rate and negative changes depreciation. Financial turbulence has been dominated by reactions to the new program for Greece (see section IB in http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/debt-and-financial-risk-aversion-and.html), modifications and new approach adopted in the Euro Summit of Oct 26 (European Commission 2011Oct26SS, 2011Oct26MRES), doubts on the larger countries in the euro zone with sovereign risks such as Spain and Italy but expanding into possibly France and Germany, the growth standstill recession and long-term unsustainable government debt in the US, worldwide deceleration of economic growth and continuing waves of inflation. The most important current shock is that resulting from the agreement by European leaders at their meeting on Dec 9 (European Council 2911Dec9), which is analyzed in IIIC Appendix on Fiscal Compact. European leaders reached a new agreement on Jan 30 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/127631.pdf) and another agreement on Jun 29, 2012 (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131388.pdf).
The dollar/euro rate is quoted as number of US dollars USD per one euro EUR, USD 1.3189/EUR in the first row, first column in the block for currencies in Table III-1 for Fri Dec 21, depreciating to USD 1.3224/EUR on Wed Dec 26, or by 0.3 percent. The dollar depreciated because more dollars, $1.3224, were required on Wed Dec 26 to buy one euro than $1.3189 on Dec 21. Table III-1 defines a country’s exchange rate as number of units of domestic currency per unit of foreign currency. USD/EUR would be the definition of the exchange rate of the US and the inverse [1/(USD/EUR)] is the definition in this convention of the rate of exchange of the euro zone, EUR/USD. A convention used throughout this blog is required to maintain consistency in characterizing movements of the exchange rate such as in Table III-1 as appreciation and depreciation. The first row for each of the currencies shows the exchange rate at 5 PM New York time, such as USD 1.3189/EUR on Dec 21; the second row provides the cumulative percentage appreciation or depreciation of the exchange rate from the rate on the last business day of the prior week, in this case Fri Dec 21, to the last business day of the current week, in this case Fri Dec 28, such as depreciation by 0.2 percent to USD 1.3218/EUR by Dec 28; and the third row provides the percentage change from the prior business day to the current business day. For example, the USD depreciated (denoted by negative sign) by 0.2 percent from the rate of USD 1.3189/EUR on Fri Dec 21 to the rate of USD 1.3218/EUR on Fri Dec 28 {[(1.3218/1.3189) – 1]100 = 0.2%} and appreciated (denoted by positive sign) by 0.1 percent from the rate of USD 1.3237 on Thu Dec 27 to USD 1.3218/EUR on Fri Dec 28 {[(1.3218/1.3237) -1]100 = -0.1%}. Other factors constant, appreciation of the dollar relative to the euro is caused by increasing risk aversion, with rising uncertainty on European sovereign risks increasing dollar-denominated assets with sales of risk financial investments. Funds move away from higher yielding risk financial assets to the safety of dollar investments. When risk aversion declines, funds have been moving away from safe assets in dollars to risk financial assets, depreciating the dollar.
Table III-I, Weekly Financial Risk Assets Dec 24 to Dec 28, 2012
| Fri Dec 21, 2012 | M 24 | Tue 25 | W 26 | Thu 27 | Fr 28 |
| USD/EUR 1.3189 -0.2% | 1.3186 0.0% 0.0% | 1.3183 0.0% 0.0% | 1.3224 -0.3% -0.3% | 1.3237 -0.4% -0.1% | 1.3218 -0.2% 0.1% |
| JPY/ USD 84.24 -0.9% | 84.92 -0.8% -0.8% | 84.81 -0.7% 0.1% | 85.62 -1.6% -0.9% | 86.11 -2.2% -0.6% | 85.97 -2.1% 0.2% |
| CHF/ USD 0.9156 0.3% | 0.9158 0.0% 0.0% | 0.9158 0.0% 0.0% | 0.9133 0.3% 0.3% | 0.9133 0.3% 0.0% | 0.9135 0.2% 0.0% |
| CHF/ EUR 1.2076 0.0% | 1.2077 0.0% 0.0% | 1.2077 0.0% 0.0% | 1.2077 0.0% 0.0% | 1.2089 -0.1% -0.1% | 1.2076 0.0% 0.1% |
| USD/ AUD 1.0402 0.9614 -1.6% | 1.0363 0.9650 -0.4% -0.4% | 1.0362 0.9651 -0.4% 0.0% | 1.0376 0.9638 -0.2% 0.1% | 1.0377 0.9637 -0.2% 0.0% | 1.0373 0.9640 -0.3% 0.0% |
| 10 Year T Note 1.77 | 1.77 | 1.77 | 1.75 | 1.732 | 1.699 |
| 2 Year T Note 0.272 | 0.262 | 0.262 | 0.258 | 0.26 | 0.252 |
| German Bond 2Y -0.01 10Y 1.38 | 2Y -0.01 10Y 1.38 | 2Y -0.01 10Y 1.38 | 2Y -0.01 10Y 1.38 | 2Y 0.00 10Y 1.32 | 2Y -0.01 10Y 1.31 |
| DJIA 13190.84 0.4% | 13139.08 -0.4% -0.4% | 13139.08 -0.4% -0.4% | 13114.59 -0.6% -0.2% | 13096.31 -0.7% -0.1% | 12938.11 -1.9% -1.2% |
| DJ Global 1998.76 1.3% | 1995.12 -0.2% -0.2% | 1996.61 -0.1% 0.1% | 1993.85 -0.2% -0.1% | 1994.12 -0.2% 0.0% | 1984.57 -0.7% -0.5% |
| DJ Asia Pacific 1302.85 0.7% | 1299.68 -0.2% -0.2% | 1303.79 0.1% 0.3% | 1305.10 0.2% 0.1% | 1309.50 0.5% 0.3% | 1316.58 1.1% 0.5% |
| Nikkei 9940.06 2.1% | 9940.06 0.0% 0.0% | 10080.12 1.4% 1.4% | 10230.36 2.9% 1.5% | 10322.98 3.9% 0.9% | 10395.18 4.6% 0.7% |
| Shanghai 2153.31 0.1% | 2159.05 0.3% 0.3% | 2213.61 2.8% 2.5% | 2219.13 3.1% 0.3% | 2205.90 2.4% -0.6% | 2233.25 3.7% 1.2% |
| DAX 7636.23 0.5% | 7636.23 0.0% 0.0% | 7636.23 0.0% 0.0% | 7636.23 0.0% 0.0% | 7655.88 0.3% 0.3% | 7612.39 -0.3% -0.6% |
| DJ UBS Comm. 139.26 -0.9% | 138.71 -0.4% -0.4% | 138.71 -0.4% -0.4% | 139.13 -0.1% 0.3% | 139.12 -0.1% 0.0% | 139.08 -0.1% 0.0% |
| WTI $ B 88.94 2.5% | 88.83 -0.1% -0.1% | 88.83 -0.1% -0.1% | 91.09 2.4% 2.5% | 90.87 2.2% -0.2% | 90.71 2.0% -0.2% |
| Brent $/B 109.16 0.0% | 108.80 -0.3% -0.3% | 108.80 -0.3% -0.3% | 111.18 1.9% 2.2% | 110.99 1.7% -0.2% | 110.42 1.2% -0.5% |
| Gold $/OZ 1657.80 -2.3% | 1659.50 0.1% 0.1% | 1659.50 0.1% 0.1% | 1660.60 0.2% 0.1% | 1663.70 0.4% 0.2% | 1656.20 -0.1% -0.5% |
Note: USD: US dollar; JPY: Japanese Yen; CHF: Swiss
Franc; AUD: Australian dollar; Comm.: commodities; OZ: ounce
Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/
http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata
Discussion of current and recent risk-determining events is followed below by analysis of risk-measuring yields of the US and Germany and the USD/EUR rate. The overwhelming risk factor is the unsustainable Treasury deficit/debt of the United States. An important risk event is the reduction of growth prospects in the euro zone discussed by European Central Bank President Mario Draghi in “Introductory statement to the press conference,” on Dec 6, 2012 (http://www.ecb.int/press/pressconf/2012/html/is121206.en.html):
“This assessment is reflected in the December 2012 Eurosystem staff macroeconomic projections for the euro area, which foresee annual real GDP growth in a range between -0.6% and -0.4% for 2012, between -0.9% and 0.3% for 2013 and between 0.2% and 2.2% for 2014. Compared with the September 2012 ECB staff macroeconomic projections, the ranges for 2012 and 2013 have been revised downwards.
The Governing Council continues to see downside risks to the economic outlook for the euro area. These are mainly related to uncertainties about the resolution of sovereign debt and governance issues in the euro area, geopolitical issues and fiscal policy decisions in the United States possibly dampening sentiment for longer than currently assumed and delaying further the recovery of private investment, employment and consumption.”
Reuters, writing on “Bundesbank cuts German growth forecast,” on Dec 7, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e845114-4045-11e2-8f90-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2EMQxzs3u), informs that the central bank of Germany, Deutsche Bundesbank reduced its forecast of growth for the economy of Germany to 0.7 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.0 percent in Jun and to 0.4 percent in 2012 from an earlier forecast of 1.6 percent while the forecast for 2014 is at 1.9 percent.
The major risk event during earlier weeks was sharp decline of sovereign yields with the yield on the ten-year bond of Spain falling to 5.309 percent and that of the ten-year bond of Italy falling to 4.473 percent on Fri Nov 30, 2012 and 5.366 percent for the ten-year of Spain and 4.527 percent for the ten-year of Italy on Fri Nov 14, 2012 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Vanessa Mock and Frances Robinson, writing on “EU approves Spanish bank’s restructuring plans,” on Nov 28, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578146520774638316.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the European Union regulators approved restructuring of four Spanish banks (Bankia, NCG Banco, Catalunya Banc and Banco de Valencia), which helped to calm sovereign debt markets. Harriet Torry and James Angelo, writing on “Germany approves Greek aid,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323751104578150532603095790.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), inform that the German parliament approved the plan to provide Greece a tranche of €44 billion in promised financial support, which is subject to sustainability analysis of the bond repurchase program later in Dec 2012. A hurdle for sustainability of repurchasing debt is that Greece’s sovereign bonds have appreciated significantly from around 24 percent for the bond maturing in 21 years and 20 percent for the bond maturing in 31 years in Aug 2012 to around 17 percent for the 21-year maturity and 15 percent for the 31-year maturing in Nov 2012. Declining years are equivalent to increasing prices, making the repurchase more expensive. Debt repurchase is intended to reduce bonds in circulation, turning Greek debt more manageable. Ben McLannahan, writing on “Japan unveils $11bn stimulus package,” on Nov 30, 2012, published in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/adc0569a-3aa5-11e2-baac-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN), informs that the cabinet in Japan approved another stimulus program of $11 billion, which is twice larger than another stimulus plan in late Oct and close to elections in Dec. Henry Sender, writing on “Tokyo faces weak yen and high bond yields,” published on Nov 29, 2012 in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9a7178d0-393d-11e2-afa8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2DibFFquN), analyzes concerns of regulators on duration of bond holdings in an environment of likelihood of increasing yields and yen depreciation.
First, Risk-Determining Events. The European Council statement on Nov 23, 2012 asked the President of the European Commission “to continue the work and pursue consultations in the coming weeks to find a consensus among the 27 over the Union’s Multiannual Financial Framework for the period 2014-2020” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf) Discussions will continue in the effort to reach agreement on a budget: “A European budget is important for the cohesion of the Union and for jobs and growth in all our countries” (http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133723.pdf). There is disagreement between the group of countries requiring financial assistance and those providing bailout funds. Gabrielle Steinhauser and Costas Paris, writing on “Greek bond rally puts buyback in doubt,” on Nov 23, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324352004578136362599130992.html?mg=reno64-wsj) find a new hurdle in rising prices of Greek sovereign debt that may make more difficult buybacks of debt held by investors. European finance ministers continue their efforts to reach an agreement for Greece that meets with approval of the European Central Bank and the IMF. The European Council (2012Oct19 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/133004.pdf ) reached conclusions on strengthening the euro area and providing unified financial supervision:
“The European Council called for work to proceed on the proposals on the Single Supervisory Mechanism as a matter of priority with the objective of agreeing on the legislative framework by 1st January 2013 and agreed on a number of orientations to that end. It also took note of issues relating to the integrated budgetary and economic policy frameworks and democratic legitimacy and accountability which should be further explored. It agreed that the process towards deeper economic and monetary union should build on the EU's institutional and legal framework and be characterised by openness and transparency towards non-euro area Member States and respect for the integrity of the Single Market. It looked forward to a specific and time-bound roadmap to be presented at its December 2012 meeting, so that it can move ahead on all essential building blocks on which a genuine EMU should be based.”
Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. The Bank of Spain released new data on doubtful debtors in Spain’s credit institutions (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/Agenda/Datos_de_credit_a6cd708c59cf931.html). In 2006, the value of doubtful credits reached €10,859 million or 0.7 percent of total credit of €1,508,626 million. In Aug 2012, doubtful credit reached €178,579 million or 10.5 percent of total credit of €1,698,714 million.
There are three critical factors influencing world financial markets. (1) Spain could request formal bailout from the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) that may also affect Italy’s international borrowing. David Roman and Jonathan House, writing on “Spain risks backlash with budget plan,” on Sep 27, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443916104578021692765950384.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection) analyze Spain’s proposal of reducing government expenditures by €13 billion, or around $16.7 billion, increasing taxes in 2013, establishing limits on early retirement and cutting the deficit by €65 billion through 2014. Banco de España, Bank of Spain, contracted consulting company Oliver Wyman to conduct rigorous stress tests of the resilience of its banking system. (Stress tests and their use are analyzed by Pelaez and Pelaez Globalization and the State Vol. I (2008b), 95-100, International Financial Architecture (2005) 112-6, 123-4, 130-3).) The results are available from Banco de España (http://www.bde.es/bde/en/secciones/prensa/infointeres/reestructuracion/ http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). The assumptions of the adverse scenario used by Oliver Wyman are quite tough for the three-year period from 2012 to 2014: “6.5 percent cumulative decline of GDP, unemployment rising to 27.2 percent and further declines of 25 percent of house prices and 60 percent of land prices (http://www.bde.es/f/webbde/SSICOM/20120928/informe_ow280912e.pdf). Fourteen banks were stress tested with capital needs estimates of seven banks totaling €59.3 billion. The three largest banks of Spain, Banco Santander (http://www.santander.com/csgs/Satellite/CFWCSancomQP01/es_ES/Corporativo.html), BBVA (http://www.bbva.com/TLBB/tlbb/jsp/ing/home/index.jsp) and Caixabank (http://www.caixabank.com/index_en.html), with 43 percent of exposure under analysis, have excess capital of €37 billion in the adverse scenario in contradiction with theories that large, international banks are necessarily riskier. Jonathan House, writing on “Spain expects wider deficit on bank aid,” on Sep 30, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444138104578028484168511130.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), analyzes the 2013 budget plan of Spain that will increase the deficit of 7.4 percent of GDP in 2012, which is above the target of 6.3 percent under commitment with the European Union. The ratio of debt to GDP will increase to 85.3 percent in 2012 and 90.5 percent in 2013 while the 27 members of the European Union have an average debt/GDP ratio of 83 percent at the end of IIQ2012. (2) Symmetric inflation targets appear to have been abandoned in favor of a self-imposed single jobs mandate of easing monetary policy even after the economy grows again at or close to potential output. Monetary easing by unconventional measures is now apparently open ended in perpetuity as provided in the statement of the meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) on Sep 13, 2012 (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20120913a.htm):
“To support a stronger economic recovery and to help ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with its dual mandate, the Committee agreed today to increase policy accommodation by purchasing additional agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $40 billion per month. The Committee also will continue through the end of the year its program to extend the average maturity of its holdings of securities as announced in June, and it is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities. These actions, which together will increase the Committee’s holdings of longer-term securities by about $85 billion each month through the end of the year, should put downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative.
To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee expects that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the economic recovery strengthens.”
In fact, it is evident to the public that this policy will be abandoned if inflation costs rise. There is the concern of the production and employment costs of controlling future inflation.
(2) The European Central Bank (ECB) approved a new program of bond purchases under the name “Outright Monetary Transactions” (OMT). The ECB will purchase sovereign bonds of euro zone member countries that have a program of conditionality under the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) that is converting into the European Stability Mechanism (ESM). These programs provide enhancing the solvency of member countries in a transition period of structural reforms and fiscal adjustment. The purchase of bonds by the ECB would maintain debt costs of sovereigns at sufficiently low levels to permit adjustment under the EFSF/ESM programs. Purchases of bonds are not limited quantitatively with discretion by the ECB as to how much is necessary to support countries with adjustment programs. Another feature of the OMT of the ECB is sterilization of bond purchases: funds injected to pay for the bonds would be withdrawn or sterilized by ECB transactions. The statement by the European Central Bank on the program of OTM is as follows (http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/date/2012/html/pr120906_1.en.html):
“6 September 2012 - Technical features of Outright Monetary Transactions
As announced on 2 August 2012, the Governing Council of the European Central Bank (ECB) has today taken decisions on a number of technical features regarding the Eurosystem’s outright transactions in secondary sovereign bond markets that aim at safeguarding an appropriate monetary policy transmission and the singleness of the monetary policy. These will be known as Outright Monetary Transactions (OMTs) and will be conducted within the following framework:
Conditionality
A necessary condition for Outright Monetary Transactions is strict and effective conditionality attached to an appropriate European Financial Stability Facility/European Stability Mechanism (EFSF/ESM) programme. Such programmes can take the form of a full EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programme or a precautionary programme (Enhanced Conditions Credit Line), provided that they include the possibility of EFSF/ESM primary market purchases. The involvement of the IMF shall also be sought for the design of the country-specific conditionality and the monitoring of such a programme.
The Governing Council will consider Outright Monetary Transactions to the extent that they are warranted from a monetary policy perspective as long as programme conditionality is fully respected, and terminate them once their objectives are achieved or when there is non-compliance with the macroeconomic adjustment or precautionary programme.
Following a thorough assessment, the Governing Council will decide on the start, continuation and suspension of Outright Monetary Transactions in full discretion and acting in accordance with its monetary policy mandate.
Coverage
Outright Monetary Transactions will be considered for future cases of EFSF/ESM macroeconomic adjustment programmes or precautionary programmes as specified above. They may also be considered for Member States currently under a macroeconomic adjustment programme when they will be regaining bond market access.
Transactions will be focused on the shorter part of the yield curve, and in particular on sovereign bonds with a maturity of between one and three years.
No ex ante quantitative limits are set on the size of Outright Monetary Transactions.
Creditor treatment
The Eurosystem intends to clarify in the legal act concerning Outright Monetary Transactions that it accepts the same (pari passu) treatment as private or other creditors with respect to bonds issued by euro area countries and purchased by the Eurosystem through Outright Monetary Transactions, in accordance with the terms of such bonds.
Sterilisation
The liquidity created through Outright Monetary Transactions will be fully sterilised.
Transparency
Aggregate Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and their market values will be published on a weekly basis. Publication of the average duration of Outright Monetary Transaction holdings and the breakdown by country will take place on a monthly basis.
Securities Markets Programme
Following today’s decision on Outright Monetary Transactions, the Securities Markets Programme (SMP) is herewith terminated. The liquidity injected through the SMP will continue to be absorbed as in the past, and the existing securities in the SMP portfolio will be held to maturity.”
Jon Hilsenrath, writing on “Fed sets stage for stimulus,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443864204577623220212805132.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection), analyzes the essay presented by Chairman Bernanke at the Jackson Hole meeting of central bankers, as defending past stimulus with unconventional measures of monetary policy that could be used to reduce extremely high unemployment. Chairman Bernanke (2012JHAug31, 18-9) does support further unconventional monetary policy impulses if required by economic conditions (http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20120831a.htm):
“Over the past five years, the Federal Reserve has acted to support economic growth and foster job creation, and it is important to achieve further progress, particularly in the labor market. Taking due account of the uncertainties and limits of its policy tools, the Federal Reserve will provide additional policy accommodation as needed to promote a stronger economic recovery and sustained improvement in labor market conditions in a context of price stability.”
Professor John H Cochrane (2012Aug31), at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, writing on “The Federal Reserve: from central bank to central planner,” on Aug 31, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577609384030304936.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion), analyzes that the departure of central banks from open market operations into purchase of assets with risks to taxpayers and direct allocation of credit subject to political influence has caused them to abandon their political independence and accountability. Cochrane (2012Aug31) finds a return to the proposition of Milton Friedman in the 1960s that central banks can cause inflation and macroeconomic instability.
Mario Draghi (2012Aug29), President of the European Central Bank, also reiterated the need of exceptional and unconventional central bank policies (http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2012/html/sp120829.en.html):
“Yet it should be understood that fulfilling our mandate sometimes requires us to go beyond standard monetary policy tools. When markets are fragmented or influenced by irrational fears, our monetary policy signals do not reach citizens evenly across the euro area. We have to fix such blockages to ensure a single monetary policy and therefore price stability for all euro area citizens. This may at times require exceptional measures. But this is our responsibility as the central bank of the euro area as a whole.
The ECB is not a political institution. But it is committed to its responsibilities as an institution of the European Union. As such, we never lose sight of our mission to guarantee a strong and stable currency. The banknotes that we issue bear the European flag and are a powerful symbol of European identity.”
Buiter (2011Oct31) analyzes that the European Financial Stability Fund (EFSF) would need a “bigger bazooka” to bail out euro members in difficulties that could possibly be provided by the ECB. Buiter (2012Oct15) finds that resolution of the euro crisis requires full banking union together with restructuring the sovereign debt of at least four and possibly total seven European countries. Table III-7 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides the combined GDP in 2012 of the highly indebted euro zone members estimated in the latest World Economic Outlook of the IMF at $4167 billion or 33.1 percent of total euro zone GDP of $12,586 billion. Using the WEO of the IMF, Table III-8 in IIIE Appendix Euro Zone Survival Risk below provides debt of the highly indebted euro zone members at $3927.8 billion in 2012 that increases to $5809.9 billion when adding Germany’s debt, corresponding to 167.0 percent of Germany’s GDP. There are additional sources of debt in bailing out banks. The dimensions of the problem may require more firepower than a bazooka perhaps that of the largest conventional bomb of all times of 44,000 pounds experimentally detonated only once by the US in 1948 (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1967/mar-apr/coker.html).
Second, Risk-Measuring Yields and Exchange Rate. The ten-year government bond of Spain was quoted at 6.868 percent on Aug 10, declining to 6.447 percent on Aug 17 and 6.403 percent on Aug 24, and the ten-year government bond of Italy fell from 5.894 percent on Aug 10 to 5.709 percent on Aug 17 and 5.618 percent on Aug 24. On Aug 31, the yield of the 10-year sovereign bond of Italy rose to 5.787 percent and that of Spain to 6.832 percent. The announcement of the OMT of bond-buying by the ECB together with weak employment creation in the US created risk appetite with the yield of the ten-year government bond of Spain collapsing to 5.708 percent on Sep 7 and the yield of the ten-year government bond of Italy to 5.008 percent (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). The yield of the ten-year government bond of Spain traded at 5.770 percent on Sep 14 and at 5.739 percent on Sep 21 and ten-year government of Italy traded at 4.953 percent on Sep 14 and 4.982 on Sep 21. The imminence of a bailout of Spain drove the yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain to 5.979 percent on Fri Sep 28 and that of Italy to 5.031 percent but both traded higher during the day. Sovereign yields continued to decline by Oct 5 with the yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain trading at 5.663 percent and that of Italy at 4.922 percent. On Oct 12, 2012, the yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain traded at 5.612 percent and that of Italy at 4.856 percent. Sovereign bonds continued to decline in the week of Oct 19 with the ten-year government bond Spain trading at 5.289 percent and that of Italy at 4.655 percent. On Oct 26, the yield of the ten-year government bond of Spain traded at 5.574 percent and that of Italy at 4.838 percent. On Nov 2, the ten-year government bond of Spain traded at 5.649 percent, increasing to 5.820 percent on Nov 9 while the ten-year bond of Italy traded at 4.879 percent on Nov 2, increasing o 4.898 percent on Nov 9 under renewed concerns about Greece. The ten-year bond of Italy traded at 4.816 percent on Nov 16 while the yield of the ten-year bond of Spain traded at 5.864 percent. The ten-year yield of the government of Spain traded at 5.603 percent on Nov 23 while the ten-year yield of the government of Italy traded at 4.696 percent. Discussion of current and recent risk-determining events is followed below by analysis of risk-measuring yields of the US and Germany and the USD/EUR rate. The major risk event during the week was sharp decline of sovereign yields with the yield on the ten-year bond of Spain falling to 5.309 percent and that of the ten-year bond of Italy falling to 4.473 percent on Fri Nov 30, 2012 (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Doubts of repurchase of Greek sovereign bonds, turmoil in Italian politics and reduction of growth forecasts by the European Central Bank and the Deutsche Bundesbank contributed to increase of the yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain to 5.454 percent on Dec 7, 2012 and of the ten-year sovereign bond of Italy to 4.471 percent (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). On Fri Dec 14, the yield of the ten-year bond of Spain traded at 5.366 percent and that of Italy at 4.527 percent. The yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain traded at 5.228 percent on Dec 21, 2012 and that of Italy at 4.424 percent. The yield of the ten-year sovereign bond of Spain traded at 5.235 percent on Dec 28 and that of the ten-year sovereign bond of Italy at 4.447 percent (http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_PRO_hps_marketdata). Risk aversion is captured by flight of investors from risk financial assets to the government securities of the US and Germany. Diminishing aversion is captured by increase of the yield of the two- and ten-year Treasury notes and the two- and ten-year government bonds of Germany. Table III-1A provides yields of US and German governments bonds and the rate of USD/EUR. Yields of US and German government bonds decline during shocks of risk aversion and the dollar strengthens in the form of fewer dollars required to buy one euro. The yield of the US ten-year Treasury note fell from 2.202 percent on Aug 26, 2011 to 1.459 percent on Jul 20, 2012, reminiscent of experience during the Treasury-Fed accord of the 1940s that placed a ceiling on long-term Treasury debt (Hetzel and Leach 2001), while the yield of the ten-year government bond of Germany fell from 2.16 percent to 1.17 percent. Under increasing risk appetite, the yield of the ten-year Treasury rose to 1.544 on Jul 27, 2012 and 1.569 percent on Aug 3, 2012, while the yield of the ten-year Government bond of Germany rose to 1.40 percent on Jul 27 and 1.42 percent on Aug 3. Yields moved on an increasing trend with the US ten-year note at 1.814 percent on Aug 17 and the German ten-year bond at 1.50 percent with sharp decline on Aug 24 to 1.684 percent for the yield of the US ten-year note and 1.35 for the yield of the German ten-year bond. The trend was interrupted with decline of the yield of the ten-year Treasury note to 1.543 percent on Aug 31, 2012, and of the ten-year German bond to 1.33 percent. The US dollar strengthened significantly from USD 1.450/EUR on Aug 26, 2011, to USD 1.2158 on Jul 20, 2012, or by 16.2 percent, but depreciated to USD 1.2320/EUR on Jul 27, 2012 and 1.2387 on Aug 3, 2012 in expectation of massive support of highly indebted euro zone members. Doubts returned at the end of the week of Aug 10, 2012 with appreciation to USD 1.2290/EUR and decline of the yields of the two-year government bond of Germany to -0.07 percent and of the ten-year to 1.38 percent. On Aug 17, the US dollar depreciated by 0.4 percent to USD 1.2335/EUR and the ten-year bond of Germany yielded -0.04 percent. Risk appetite returned in the week of Aug 24 with depreciation by 1.4 percent to USD 1.2512/EUR and lower yield of the German two-year bond to -0.01 percent and of the US two-year note to 0.266 percent. Further risk aversion is captured by decline of yield of the two-year Treasury note to 0.225 percent on Aug 31, 2012, and to -0.03 percent for the two-year sovereign bond of Germany while the USD moved in opposite direction, depreciating to USD 1.2575/EUR. The almost simultaneous announcement of the bond-buying OMT of the ECB on Sep 6 and the weak employment report on Sep 7 suggesting further easing by the FOMC caused risk appetite shown by the increase in yields of government bonds of the US on Sep 7 to 1.668 percent for the ten-year note and 0.252 percent for the two-year while the two-year yield of Germany rose from -0.03 percent to 0.03 percent and the ten-year yield from 1.33 percent to 1.52 percent. Risk aversion retreated again on Sep 14, 2012 because of the open-ended monetary policy of the FOMC with the dollar devaluing to USD 1.3130 and the ten-year yield of the US Treasury note increasing to 1.863 percent (also in part because of bond buying by the Fed at shorter maturities) and the yield of the ten-year German bond increasing to 1.71 percent. Risk aversions returned because of weak flash purchasing managers indices with appreciation to USD1.2981 in the week of Sep 21 and declines of the yield of the ten-year Treasury note to 1.753 percent and of the yield of the ten-year government bond to 1.60 percent. Risk aversion because of the potential bailout of Spain drove down the US ten-year yield to 1.631 and the ten-year yield of Germany to 1.44 percent while the dollar appreciated to USD 1.2859/EUR. Increasing risk appetite drove the yield of the ten-year Treasury to 1.737 percent on Oct 5, 2012 and depreciated the dollar to USD 1.3036 with more muted response in the yield of the ten-year bond of Germany rising to 1.52 percent and the two-year yield to 0.06 percent. There is indication of some risk aversion in the week of Oct 12, 2012, with decline of the yield of the ten-year Treasury to 1.663 percent and that of Germany to 1.45 percent, stability of the two-year Treasury yield at 0.264 percent and marginal decline of the yield of the two-year German bond to 0.04 percent while the dollar appreciated to USD 1.2953/EUR. Risk aversion fluctuated in the week of Oct 19 but the week ended with the increase of the yield of the two-year note of the US to 0.296 percent and of the ten-year note to 1.766 percent; there was similar increase of the yield of the two-year government bond of Germany to 0.11 percent and of the ten-year yield to 1.59 percent; and the dollar depreciated 0.5 percent to USD 1.3023 percent. Mild risk aversion returned in the week of Oct 26, with the 10-year Treasury yield declining marginally to 1.748 percent and that of Germany to 1.54 percent while the dollar appreciated to USD 1.2942/EUR. Mild risk aversion continued in the week of Nov 2 with declines in the yield of the ten-year Treasury note to 1.715 percent and of the ten-year government bond of Germany to 1.45 percent while the dollar appreciated to USD 1.2838/EUR. Risk aversion deepened in the week of Nov 9 with the two-year Treasury trading at 0.256 percent and the ten-year at 1.614 percent while the two-year government bond of Germany traded at minus 0.03 percent and the ten-year at 1.35 percent while the dollar strengthened to USD 1.2711/EUR. There is continuing risk aversion in the week of Nov 16, with the yields of the two-year Treasury at 0.24 percent and of the ten-year Treasury at 1.584, the yield of the two-year government bond at minus 0.03 percent and of the ten-year German government bond at 1.33 percent and the rate of USD 1.2743/EUR. Expectations of an agreement on US fiscal affairs and Greece’s bailout improved risk appetite in the holiday week of Nov 23 with the US two-year yield rising to 0.273 percent and the ten-year yield to 1.691, less pronounced improvement with the two-year yield of Germany at 0.00 percent and ten-year yield at 1.44 percent but depreciation of the dollar to USD 1.2975/EUR while stock markets soared. While yields of sovereign bonds of Spain and Italy fell sharply in the week of Nov 30, yields of US and German bonds traded down to 0.248 for two years and 1.612 for ten years for the US and 0.01 percent for two years and 1.39 percent for ten years for Germany. The dollar remained almost unchanged at USD 1.2987/EUR. Reductions of growth forecasts by the European Central Bank and Deutsche Bundesbank together with doubts on sovereign bond repurchase by Greece and Italian political turmoil contributed to decrease of the yield of the two-year government bond of Germany to minus 0.008 on Dec 7, 2012, and of the ten-year yield to 1.39 while the dollar appreciated to USD 1.2026/EUR while risk aversion continued in the US with the two-year Treasury yield at 0.256 percent and the ten-year yield at 1.625 percent. Yields backed up to 1.704 for the ten-year US Treasury and 1.35 for the ten-year German bond in the week of Dec 14, 2012, while the dollar depreciated to USD 1.3162/EUR. Treasury yields continued to back up in the week of Dec 21, 2012, with the ten-year at 1.77 percent and the two-year at 0.272 with the two-year of Germany at minus 0.01 percent and the ten-year at 1.38 percent while the dollar depreciated to USD 1.3189/EUR. Return of risk aversion manifested in the week of Dec 28, 2912, with decline of the yield of the two-year Treasury to 2.52 percent and of the ten-year Treasury to 1.699 percent with the two-year bond of Germany at minus 0.01 percent and the ten-year at 1.31 percent while the dollar devalued slightly to USD 1.3218.EUR. The zero interest rates for the monetary policy rate of the US, or fed funds rate, carry trades ensure devaluation of the dollar if there is no risk aversion but the dollar appreciates in flight to safe haven during episodes of risk aversion. Unconventional monetary policy induces significant global financial instability, excessive risks and low liquidity. The ten-year Treasury yield is below consumer price inflation of 1.8 percent in the 12 months ending in Nov (http://cmpassocregulationblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/recovery-without-hiring-forecast-growth.html) and the expectation of higher inflation if risk aversion diminishes. Treasury securities continue to be safe haven for investors fearing risk but with concentration in shorter maturities such as the two-year Treasury. The lower part of Table III-1A provides the same flight to government securities of the US and Germany and the USD during the financial crisis and global recession and the beginning of the European debt crisis in the spring of 2010 with the USD trading at USD 1.192/EUR on Jun 7, 2010.
Table III-1A, Two- and Ten-Year Yields of Government Bonds of the US and Germany and US Dollar/EUR Exchange rate
| US 2Y | US 10Y | DE 2Y | DE 10Y | USD/ EUR | |
| 12/28/12 | 0.252 | 1.699 | -0.01 | 1.31 | 1.3218 |
| 12/21/12 | 0.272 | 1.77 | -0.01 | 1.38 | 1.3189 |
| 12/14/12 | 0.232 | 1.704 | -0.04 | 1.35 | 1.3162 |
| 12/7/12 | 0.256 | 1.625 | -0.08 | 1.30 | 1.2926 |
| 11/30/12 | 0.248 | 1.612 | 0.01 | 1.39 | 1.2987 |
| 11/23/12 | 0.273 | 1.691 | 0.00 | 1.44 | 1.2975 |
| 11/16/12 | 0.24 | 1.584 | -0.03 | 1.33 | 1.2743 |
| 11/9/12 | 0.256 | 1.614 | -0.03 | 1.35 | 1.2711 |
| 11/2/12 | 0.274 | 1.715 | 0.01 | 1.45 | 1.2838 |
| 10/26/12 | 0.299 | 1.748 | 0.05 | 1.54 | 1.2942 |
| 10/19/12 | 0.296 | 1.766 | 0.11 | 1.59 | 1.3023 |
| 10/12/12 | 0.264 | 1.663 | 0.04 | 1.45 | 1.2953 |
| 10/5/12 | 0.26 | 1.737 | 0.06 | 1.52 | 1.3036 |
| 9/28/12 | 0.236 | 1.631 | 0.02 | 1.44 | 1.2859 |
| 9/21/12 | 0.26 | 1.753 | 0.04 | 1.60 | 1.2981 |
| 9/14/12 | 0.252 | 1.863 | 0.10 | 1.71 | 1.3130 |
| 9/7/12 | 0.252 | 1.668 | 0.03 | 1.52 | 1.2816 |
| 8/31/12 | 0.225 | 1.543 | -0.03 | 1.33 | 1.2575 |
| 8/24/12 | 0.266 | 1.684 | -0.01 | 1.35 | 1.2512 |
| 8/17/12 | 0.288 | 1.814 | -0.04 | 1.50 | 1.2335 |
| 8/10/12 | 0.267 | 1.658 | -0.07 | 1.38 | 1.2290 |
| 8/3/12 | 0.242 | 1.569 | -0.02 | 1.42 | 1.2387 |
| 7/27/12 | 0.244 | 1.544 | -0.03 | 1.40 | 1.2320 |
| 7/20/12 | 0.207 | 1.459 | -0.07 | 1.17 | 1.2158 |
| 7/13/12 | 0.24 | 1.49 | -0.04 | 1.26 | 1.2248 |
| 7/6/12 | 0.272 | 1.548 | -0.01 | 1.33 | 1.2288 |
| 6/29/12 | 0.305 | 1.648 | 0.12 | 1.58 | 1.2661 |
| 6/22/12 | 0.309 | 1.676 | 0.14 | 1.58 | 1.2570 |
| 6/15/12 | 0.272 | 1.584 | 0.07 | 1.44 | 1.2640 |
| 6/8/12 | 0.268 | 1.635 | 0.04 | 1.33 | 1.2517 |
| 6/1/12 | 0.248 | 1.454 | 0.01 | 1.17 | 1.2435 |
| 5/25/12 | 0.291 | 1.738 | 0.05 | 1.37 | 1.2518 |
| 5/18/12 | 0.292 | 1.714 | 0.05 | 1.43 | 1.2780 |
| 5/11/12 | 0.248 | 1.845 | 0.09 | 1.52 | 1.2917 |
| 5/4/12 | 0.256 | 1.876 | 0.08 | 1.58 | 1.3084 |
| 4/6/12 | 0.31 | 2.058 | 0.14 | 1.74 | 1.3096 |
| 3/30/12 | 0.335 | 2.214 | 0.21 | 1.79 | 1.3340 |
| 3/2/12 | 0.29 | 1.977 | 0.16 | 1.80 | 1.3190 |
| 2/24/12 | 0.307 | 1.977 | 0.24 | 1.88 | 1.3449 |
| 1/6/12 | 0.256 | 1.957 | 0.17 | 1.85 | 1.2720 |
| 12/30/11 | 0.239 | 1.871 | 0.14 | 1.83 | 1.2944 |
| 8/26/11 | 0.20 | 2.202 | 0.65 | 2.16 | 1.450 |
| 8/19/11 | 0.192 | 2.066 | 0.65 | 2.11 | 1.4390 |
| 6/7/10 | 0.74 | 3.17 | 0.49 | 2.56 | 1.192 |
| 3/5/09 | 0.89 | 2.83 | 1.19 | 3.01 | 1.254 |
| 12/17/08 | 0.73 | 2.20 | 1.94 | 3.00 | 1.442 |
| 10/27/08 | 1.57 | 3.79 | 2.61 | 3.76 | 1.246 |
| 7/14/08 | 2.47 | 3.88 | 4.38 | 4.40 | 1.5914 |
| 6/26/03 | 1.41 | 3.55 | NA | 3.62 | 1.1423 |
Note: DE: Germany
Source:
http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/
http://professional.wsj.com/mdc/page/marketsdata.html?mod=WSJ_hps_marketdata
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm
http://www.ecb.int/stats/money/long/html/index.en.html
Chart III-1A of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System provides the ten-year, two-year and one-month Treasury constant maturity yields. The beginning yields in Chart III-1A for July 31, 2000, are 3.67 percent for one month, 3.79 percent for two years and 5.07 percent for ten years. On July 31, 2007, yields inverted with the one month at 5.13 percent, the two-year at 4.56 percent and the ten year at 5.13 percent. During the beginning of the flight from risk financial assets to US government securities (see Cochrane and Zingales 2009), the one-month yield was 0.07 percent, the two-year yield1.64 percent and the ten-year yield 3.41. The combination of zero fed funds rate and quantitative easing caused sharp decline of the yields from 2008 and 2009. Yield declines have also occurred during periods of financial risk aversion, including the current one of stress of financial markets in Europe. The final point of Chart III1-A is for Dec 27, 2012, with the one-month yield at 0.01 percent, the two-year at 0.26 percent and the ten-year at 1.74 percent.
Chart III-1A, US, Ten-Year, Two-Year and One-Month Treasury Constant Maturity Yields Jul 31, 2001-Dec 27, 2012
Note: US Recessions in shaded areas
Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/update/
Kate Linebaugh, writing on “Falling revenue dings stocks,” on Oct 20, 2012, published in the Wall Street Journal (http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444592704578066933466076070.html?mod=WSJPRO_hpp_LEFTTopStories), identifies a key financial vulnerability: falling revenues across markets for United States reporting companies. Global economic slowdown is reducing corporate sales and squeezing corporate strategies. Linebaugh quotes data from Thomson Reuters that 100 companies of the S&P 500 index have reported declining revenue only 1 percent higher in Jun-Sep 2012 relative to Jun-Sep 2011 but about 60 percent of the companies are reporting lower sales than expected by analysts with expectation that revenue for the S&P 500 will be lower in Jun-Sep 2012 for the entities represented in the index. Results of US companies are likely repeated worldwide. The basic valuation equation that is also used in capital budgeting postulates that the value of stocks or of an investment project is given by:
![clip_image038[2]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhts7KazugX-d4Usq3lZ2zII4VGQhMZaEvvOHSZa7lemCWypIy1hnkl7scNvKwZbEHZgYPXjWHoNoV9GB9dvEmBAOBKC2n7aAJAFguQ7V7UjiKqJ7cAJrjbFnhpFcioZKQUwZzg5Z7ePMs/s1600-h/clip_image038%25255B2%25255D%25255B2%25255D.gif "clip_image038[2]"){kind=small}
Where Rτ is expected revenue in the time horizon from τ =1 to T; Cτ denotes costs; and ρ is an appropriate rate of discount. In words, the value today of a stock or investment project is the net revenue, or revenue less costs, in the investment period from τ =1 to T discounted to the present by an appropriate rate of discount. In the current weak economy, revenues have been increasing more slowly than anticipated in investment plans. An increase in interest rates would affect discount rates used in calculations of present value, resulting in frustration of investment decisions. If V represents value of the stock or investment project, as ρ → ∞, meaning that interest rates increase without bound, then V → 0, or
![clip_image038[3]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhp3QZVOTLaXZawQJkwMiApWwEAzprkmsThtk4vDUXC4Lnlkw2r_wFwxp0t-LgOH3aSzTyMy6VQAe8vwJ7KAgAnmNQQQay8PiZ8YKcU49KF-YRVN_2aKByzEBzPxdWhYCy912DrAPqbABI/s1600-h/clip_image038%25255B3%25255D%25255B2%25255D.gif "clip_image038[3]"){kind=small}
declines.
There were mixed changes in equity indexes in Table III-1 in the week ending on Dec 28, 2012 with US and European indexes weaker than in Asia. Stagnating revenues are causing reevaluation of discounted net earnings with deteriorating views on the world economy and United States fiscal sustainability but investors have been driving indexes higher. DJIA decreased 1.2 percent on Dec 28, decreasing 1.9 percent in the week. Germany’s Dax decreased 0.6 percent on Fri Dec 28 and decreased 0.3 percent in the week. Dow Global decreased 0.5 percent on Dec 28 and decreased 0.7 percent in the week. Japan’s Nikkei Average increased 0.7 percent on Fri Dec 28 and increased 4.1 percent in the week as the yen continues to be oscillating but relatively weaker and the stock market gains in expectations of fiscal stimulus by a new administration. Dow Asia Pacific TSM increased 0.5 percent on Dec 28 and increased 1.1 percent in the week while Shanghai Composite increased 1.2 percent on Dec 28 and increased 3.7 percent in the week supported by a fourteen-month high of the HSBC flash manufacturing index (available through Markit at http://www.markiteconomics.com/MarkitFiles/Pages/ViewPressRelease.aspx?ID=10452), falling below 2000 to close at 1980.13 on Fri Nov 30 but closing at 2233.25 on Fri Dec 28. There is evident trend of deceleration of the world economy that could affect corporate revenue and equity valuations, causing oscillation in equity markets with increases during favorable risk appetite.
Commodities were mixed in the week of Dec 28, 2012. The DJ UBS Commodities Index increased 0.0 percent on Fri Dec 28 and decreased 0.1 percent in the week, as shown in Table III-1. WTI increased 2.0 percent in the week of Dec 28 while Brent increased 1.2 percent in the week even with conflicts in the Middle East. Gold decreased 0.5 percent on Fri Dec 28 and decreased 0.1 percent in the week.
Table III-2 provides an update of the consolidated financial statement of the Eurosystem. The balance sheet has swollen with the long-term refinancing operations (LTROs). Line 5 “Lending to Euro Area Credit Institutions Related to Monetary Policy” increased from €546,747 million on Dec 31, 2010, to €879,130 million on Dec 28, 2011 and €1,122,338 million on Dec 21, 2012. The sum of line 5 and line 7 (“Securities of Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro”) has increased to €1,707,554 million in the statement of Dec 21. There is high credit risk in these transactions with capital of only €85,552 million as analyzed by Cochrane (2012Aug31).
Table III-2, Consolidated Financial Statement of the Eurosystem, Million EUR
| Dec 31, 2010 | Dec 28, 2011 | Dec 21, 2012 | |
| 1 Gold and other Receivables | 367,402 | 419,822 | 479,115 |
| 2 Claims on Non Euro Area Residents Denominated in Foreign Currency | 223,995 | 236,826 | 258,034 |
| 3 Claims on Euro Area Residents Denominated in Foreign Currency | 26,941 | 95,355 | 33,690 |
| 4 Claims on Non-Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro | 22,592 | 25,982 | 19,088 |
| 5 Lending to Euro Area Credit Institutions Related to Monetary Policy Operations Denominated in Euro | 546,747 | 879,130 | 1,122,338 |
| 6 Other Claims on Euro Area Credit Institutions Denominated in Euro | 45,654 | 94,989 | 208,292 |
| 7 Securities of Euro Area Residents Denominated in Euro | 457,427 | 610,629 | 585,216 |
| 8 General Government Debt Denominated in Euro | 34,954 | 33,928 | 32,008 |
| 9 Other Assets | 278,719 | 336,574 | 275,419 |
| TOTAL ASSETS | 2,004, 432 | 2,733,235 | 3,011,200 |
| Memo Items | |||
| Sum of 5 and 7 | 1,004,174 | 1,489,759 | 1,707,554 |
| Capital and Reserves | 78,143 | 85,748 | 85,552 |
Source: European Central Bank
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2011/html/fs110105.en.html
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2011/html/fs111228.en.html
http://www.ecb.int/press/pr/wfs/2012/html/fs121227.en.html
IIIE Appendix Euro Zone survival risk. Professors Ricardo Caballero and Francesco Giavazzi (2012Jan15) find that the resolution of the European sovereign crisis with survival of the euro area would require success in the restructuring of Italy. That success would be assured with growth of the Italian economy. A critical problem is that the common euro currency prevents Italy from devaluing the exchange rate to parity or the exchange rate that would permit export growth to promote internal economic activity, which could generate fiscal revenues for primary fiscal surplus that ensure creditworthiness. Fiscal consolidation and restructuring are important but of long-term gestation. Immediate growth of the Italian economy would consolidate the resolution of the sovereign debt crisis. Caballero and Giavazzi (2012Jan15) argue that 55 percent of the exports of Italy are to countries outside the euro area such that devaluation of 15 percent would be effective in increasing export revenue. Newly available data in Table III-3 providing Italy’s trade with regions and countries supports the argument of Caballero and Giavazzi (2012Jan15). Italy’s exports to the European Monetary Union (EMU), or euro area, are only 42.5 percent of the total. Exports to the non-European Union area with share of 44.0 percent in Italy’s total exports are growing at 9.9 percent in Jan-Oct 2012 relative to Jan-Oct 2011 while those to EMU are falling at 0.9 percent.
Table III-3, Italy, Exports and Imports by Regions and Countries, % Share and 12-Month ∆%
| Oct 2012 | Exports | ∆% Jan-Oct 2012/ Jan-Oct 2011 | Imports | Imports |
| EU | 56.0 | 0.2 | 53.7 | -7.3 |
| EMU 17 | 42.5 | -0.9 | 43.3 | -7.3 |
| France | 11.6 | 0.0 | 8.4 | -5.9 |
| Germany | 13.1 | 0.1 | 15.5 | -10.9 |
| Spain | 5.3 | -8.1 | 4.5 | -8.1 |
| UK | 4.7 | 10.2 | 2.7 | -13.6 |
| Non EU | 44.0 | 9.9 | 46.3 | -3.1 |
| Europe non EU | 13.3 | 9.7 | 12.5 | -1.4 |
| USA | 6.1 | 18.8 | 3.2 | 2.2 |
| China | 2.7 | -12.0 | 7.4 | -16.3 |
| OPEC | 4.7 | 24.9 | 8.5 | 22.4 |
| Total | 100.0 | 4.4 | 100.0 | -5.4 |
Notes: EU: European Union; EMU: European Monetary Union (euro zone)
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/77607
Table III-4 provides Italy’s trade balance by regions and countries. Italy had trade deficit of €330 million with the 17 countries of the euro zone (EMU 17) in Oct 2012 and deficit of €1601 million in Jan-Oct 2012. Depreciation to parity could permit greater competitiveness in improving the trade surpluses of €9,267 million in Jan-Oct with Europe non European Union and of €11,391 million with the US and in reducing the deficit with non European Union of €3106 million in Jan-Oct 2012. There is significant rigidity in the trade deficits in Jan-Oct of €14,168 million with China and €16,853 million with members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Higher exports could drive economic growth in the economy of Italy that would permit less onerous adjustment of the country’s fiscal imbalances, raising the country’s credit rating.
Table III-4, Italy, Trade Balance by Regions and Countries, Millions of Euro
| Regions and Countries | Trade Balance Oct 2012 Millions of Euro | Trade Balance Cumulative Jan-Oct 2012 Millions of Euro |
| EU | 981 | 9,634 |
| EMU 17 | -330 | -1,601 |
| France | 1,048 | 10,183 |
| Germany | -375 | -4,837 |
| Spain | 143 | 1,359 |
| UK | 916 | 7,993 |
| Non EU | 1,471 | -3,106 |
| Europe non EU | 1,051 | 9,267 |
| USA | 1,268 | 11,391 |
| China | -1,245 | -14,168 |
| OPEC | -1,128 | -16,853 |
| Total | 2,452 | 6,528 |
Notes: EU: European Union; EMU: European Monetary Union (euro zone)
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/77607
Growth rates of Italy’s trade and major products are provided in Table III-5 for the period Jan-Oct 2012 relative to Jan-Oct 2011. Growth rates in 12 months of imports are negative with the exception of 9.3 percent for energy. The higher rate of growth of exports of 5.3 percent in Jan-Oct 2012/Jan-Oct 2011 relative to imports of minus 2.6 percent may reflect weak demand in Italy with GDP declining during five consecutive quarters from IIIQ2011 through IIIQ2012.
Table III-5, Italy, Exports and Imports % Share of Products in Total and ∆%
| Exports | Exports | Imports | Imports | |
| Consumer | 28.9 | 5.3 | 25.0 | -2.6 |
| Durable | 5.9 | 2.4 | 3.0 | -5.9 |
| Non | 23.0 | 6.0 | 22.0 | -2.2 |
| Capital Goods | 32.3 | 2.5 | 21.1 | -12.3 |
| Inter- | 34.2 | 3.3 | 34.3 | -11.3 |
| Energy | 4.7 | 20.0 | 19.6 | 9.3 |
| Total ex Energy | 95.3 | 3.6 | 80.4 | -8.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 4.4 | 100.0 | -5.4 |
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/77607
Table III-6 provides Italy’s trade balance by product categories in Oct 2012 and cumulative Jan-Oct 2012. Italy’s trade balance excluding energy generated surplus of €7613 million in Oct 2012 and €60,206 million in Jan-Oct 2012 but the energy trade balance created deficit of €5161 million in Oct 2012 and €53,677 million in Jan-Oct 2012. The overall surplus in Oct 2012 was €2452 million with surplus of €6528 million in Jan-Oct 2012. Italy has significant competitiveness in various economic activities in contrast with some other countries with debt difficulties.
Table III-6, Italy, Trade Balance by Product Categories, € Millions
| Oct 2012 | Cumulative Jan-Oct 2012 | |
| Consumer Goods | 1,834 | 13,406 |
| Durable | 1,089 | 9,371 |
| Nondurable | 745 | 4,035 |
| Capital Goods | 4,711 | 40,621 |
| Intermediate Goods | 1,067 | 6,179 |
| Energy | -5,161 | -53,677 |
| Total ex Energy | 7,613 | 60,206 |
| Total | 2,452 | 6,528 |
Source: Istituto Nazionale di Statistica http://www.istat.it/it/archivio/77607
Brazil faced in the debt crisis of 1982 a more complex policy mix. Between 1977 and 1983, Brazil’s terms of trade, export prices relative to import prices, deteriorated 47 percent and 36 percent excluding oil (Pelaez 1987, 176-79; Pelaez 1986, 37-66; see Pelaez and Pelaez, The Global Recession Risk (2007), 178-87). Brazil had accumulated unsustainable foreign debt by borrowing to finance balance of payments deficits during the 1970s. Foreign lending virtually stopped. The German mark devalued strongly relative to the dollar such that Brazil’s products lost competitiveness in Germany and in multiple markets in competition with Germany. The resolution of the crisis was devaluation of the Brazilian currency by 30 percent relative to the dollar and subsequent maintenance of parity by monthly devaluation equal to inflation and indexing that resulted in financial stability by parity in external and internal interest rates avoiding capital flight. With a combination of declining imports, domestic import substitution and export growth, Brazil followed rapid growth in the US and grew out of the crisis with surprising GDP growth of 4.5 percent in 1984.
The euro zone faces a critical survival risk because several of its members may default on their sovereign obligations if not bailed out by the other members. The valuation equation of bonds is essential to understanding the stability of the euro area. An explanation is provided in this paragraph and readers interested in technical details are referred to the Subsection IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation. Contrary to the Wriston doctrine, investing in sovereign obligations is a credit decision. The value of a bond today is equal to the discounted value of future obligations of interest and principal until maturity. On Dec 30 the yield of the 2-year bond of the government of Greece was quoted around 100 percent. In contrast, the 2-year US Treasury note traded at 0.239 percent and the 10-year at 2.871 percent while the comparable 2-year government bond of Germany traded at 0.14 percent and the 10-year government bond of Germany traded at 1.83 percent. There is no need for sovereign ratings: the perceptions of investors are of relatively higher probability of default by Greece, defying Wriston (1982), and nil probability of default of the US Treasury and the German government. The essence of the sovereign credit decision is whether the sovereign will be able to finance new debt and refinance existing debt without interrupting service of interest and principal. Prices of sovereign bonds incorporate multiple anticipations such as inflation and liquidity premiums of long-term relative to short-term debt but also risk premiums on whether the sovereign’s debt can be managed as it increases without bound. The austerity measures of Italy are designed to increase the primary surplus, or government revenues less expenditures excluding interest, to ensure investors that Italy will have the fiscal strength to manage its debt of 120 percent of GDP, which is the third largest in the world after the US and Japan. Appendix IIIE links the expectations on the primary surplus to the real current value of government monetary and fiscal obligations. As Blanchard (2011SepWEO) analyzes, fiscal consolidation to increase the primary surplus is facilitated by growth of the economy. Italy and the other indebted sovereigns in Europe face the dual challenge of increasing primary surpluses while maintaining growth of the economy (for the experience of Brazil in the debt crisis of 1982 see Pelaez 1986, 1987).
Much of the analysis and concern over the euro zone centers on the lack of credibility of the debt of a few countries while there is credibility of the debt of the euro zone as a whole. In practice, there is convergence in valuations and concerns toward the fact that there may not be credibility of the euro zone as a whole. The fluctuations of financial risk assets of members of the euro zone move together with risk aversion toward the countries with lack of debt credibility. This movement raises the need to consider analytically sovereign debt valuation of the euro zone as a whole in the essential analysis of whether the single-currency will survive without major changes.
Welfare economics considers the desirability of alternative states, which in this case would be evaluating the “value” of Germany (1) within and (2) outside the euro zone. Is the sum of the wealth of euro zone countries outside of the euro zone higher than the wealth of these countries maintaining the euro zone? On the choice of indicator of welfare, Hicks (1975, 324) argues:
“Partly as a result of the Keynesian revolution, but more (perhaps) because of statistical labours that were initially quite independent of it, the Social Product has now come right back into its old place. Modern economics—especially modern applied economics—is centered upon the Social Product, the Wealth of Nations, as it was in the days of Smith and Ricardo, but as it was not in the time that came between. So if modern theory is to be effective, if it is to deal with the questions which we in our time want to have answered, the size and growth of the Social Product are among the chief things with which it must concern itself. It is of course the objective Social Product on which attention must be fixed. We have indexes of production; we do not have—it is clear we cannot have—an Index of Welfare.”
If the burden of the debt of the euro zone falls on Germany and France or only on Germany, is the wealth of Germany and France or only Germany higher after breakup of the euro zone or if maintaining the euro zone? In practice, political realities will determine the decision through elections.
The prospects of survival of the euro zone are dire. Table III-7 is constructed with IMF World Economic Outlook database (http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php?db=WEO) for GDP in USD billions, primary net lending/borrowing as percent of GDP and general government debt as percent of GDP for selected regions and countries in 2010.
Table III-7, World and Selected Regional and Country GDP and Fiscal Situation
| GDP 2012 | Primary Net Lending Borrowing | General Government Net Debt | |
| World | 71,277 | ||
| Euro Zone | 12,065 | -0.5 | 73.4 |
| Portugal | 211 | -0.7 | 110.9 |
| Ireland | 205 | -4.4 | 103.0 |
| Greece | 255 | -1.7 | 170.7 |
| Spain | 1,340 | -4.5 | 78.6 |
| Major Advanced Economies G7 | 33,769 | -5.1 | 89.0 |
| United States | 15,653 | -6.5 | 83.8 |
| UK | 2,434 | -5.6 | 83.7 |
| Germany | 3,367 | 1.4 | 58.4 |
| France | 2,580 | -2.2 | 83.7 |
| Japan | 5,984 | -9.1 | 135.4 |
| Canada | 1,770 | -3.2 | 35.8 |
| Italy | 1,980 | 2.6 | 103.1 |
| China | 8,250 | -1.3* | 22.2** |
*Net Lending/borrowing**Gross Debt
Source: IMF World Economic Outlook databank http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php?db=WEO
The data in Table III-7 are used for some very simple calculations in Table III-8. The column “Net Debt USD Billions” in Table III-8 is generated by applying the percentage in Table III-7 column “General Government Net Debt % GDP 2010” to the column “GDP USD Billions.” The total debt of France and Germany in 2012 is $4155.8 billion, as shown in row “B+C” in column “Net Debt USD Billions” The sum of the debt of Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland is $3975.1 billion, adding rows D+E+F+G+H in column “Net Debt USD billions.” There is some simple “unpleasant bond arithmetic” in the two final columns of Table III-8. Suppose the entire debt burdens of the five countries with probability of default were to be guaranteed by France and Germany, which de facto would be required by continuing the euro zone. The sum of the total debt of these five countries and the debt of France and Germany is shown in column “Debt as % of Germany plus France GDP” to reach $8130.8 billion, which would be equivalent to 136.7 percent of their combined GDP in 2012. Under this arrangement the entire debt of the euro zone including debt of France and Germany would not have nil probability of default. The final column provides “Debt as % of Germany GDP” that would exceed 241.5 percent if including debt of France and 177.4 percent of German GDP if excluding French debt. The unpleasant bond arithmetic illustrates that there is a limit as to how far Germany and France can go in bailing out the countries with unsustainable sovereign debt without incurring severe pains of their own such as downgrades of their sovereign credit ratings. A central bank is not typically engaged in direct credit because of remembrance of inflation and abuse in the past. There is also a limit to operations of the European Central Bank in doubtful credit obligations. Wriston (1982) would prove to be wrong again that countries do not bankrupt but would have a consolation prize that similar to LBOs the sum of the individual values of euro zone members outside the current agreement exceeds the value of the whole euro zone. Internal rescues of French and German banks may be less costly than bailing out other euro zone countries so that they do not default on French and German banks.
Table III-8, Guarantees of Debt of Sovereigns in Euro Area as Percent of GDP of Germany and France, USD Billions and %
| Net Debt USD Billions | Debt as % of Germany Plus France GDP | Debt as % of Germany GDP | |
| A Euro Area | 8,855.7 | ||
| B Germany | 1,996.3 | $8130.9 as % of $3367 =241.5% $5971.4 as % of $3367 =177.4% | |
| C France | 2,159.5 | ||
| B+C | 4,155.8 | GDP $5,947.0 Total Debt $8130.9 Debt/GDP: 136.7% | |
| D Italy | 2,041.4 | ||
| E Spain | 1,053.2 | ||
| F Portugal | 234.0 | ||
| G Greece | 435.3 | ||
| H Ireland | 211.2 | ||
| Subtotal D+E+F+G+H | 3,975.1 |
Source: calculation with IMF data http://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/index.php?db=WEO
There is extremely important information in Table III-9 for the current sovereign risk crisis in the euro zone. Table III-9 provides the structure of regional and country relations of Germany’s exports and imports with newly available data for Oct 2012. German exports to other European Union (EU) members are 57.3 percent of total exports in Oct 2012 and 57.2 percent in Jan-Oct 2012. Exports to the euro area are 37.6 percent in Oct and 37.6 percent in Jan-Oct. Exports to third countries are 42.7 percent of the total in Oct and 42.8 percent in Jan-Oct. There is similar distribution for imports. Exports to non-euro countries are decreasing 2.7 percent in Oct 2012 and increasing 4.4 percent in Jan-Oct 2012 while exports to the euro area are increasing 7.0 percent in Oct and decreasing 1.2 percent in Jan-Oct 2012. Exports to third countries, accounting for 42.7 percent of the total in Oct 2012, are increasing 1.8 percent, and 10.9 percent in Jan-Oct, accounting for 42.8 percent of the cumulative total in Jan-Oct 2012. Price competitiveness through devaluation could improve export performance and growth. Economic performance in Germany is closely related to its high competitiveness in world markets. Weakness in the euro zone and the European Union in general could affect the German economy. This may be the major reason for choosing the “fiscal abuse” of the European Central Bank considered by Buiter (2011Oct31) over the breakdown of the euro zone. There is a tough analytical, empirical and forecasting doubt of growth and trade in the euro zone and the world with or without maintenance of the European Monetary Union (EMU) or euro zone. Germany could benefit from depreciation of the euro because of high share in its exports to countries not in the euro zone but breakdown of the euro zone raises doubts on the region’s economic growth that could affect German exports to other member states.
Table III-9, Germany, Structure of Exports and Imports by Region, € Billions and ∆%
| Oct 2012 | Oct 12-Month | Jan–Oct 2012 € Billions | Jan-Oct 2012/ | |
| Total | 98.5 | 10.6 | 924.4 | 4.8 |
| A. EU | 56.4 % 57.3 | 7.8 | 528.6 % 57.2 | 0.6 |
| Euro Area | 37.0 % 37.6 | 7.0 | 347.8 % 37.6 | -1.2 |
| Non-euro Area | 19.3 % 19.7 | -2.7 | 180.7 % 19.6 | 4.4 |
| B. Third Countries | 42.1 % 42.7 | 1.8 | 395.8 % 42.8 | 10.9 |
| Total Imports | 82.7 | 6.0 | 765.1 | 1.7 |
| C. EU Members | 51.9 % 62.8 | 5.4 | 484.4 % 63.3 | 1.7 |
| Euro Area | 35.5 % 42.9 | -5.7 | 339.4 % 44.4 | 1.4 |
| Non-euro Area | 16.4 % 19.8 | -2.8 | 145.0 % 18.9 | 2.5 |
| D. Third Countries | 30.8 % 37.2 | 6.9 | 280.7 % 36.7 | 1.7 |
Notes: Total Exports = A+B; Total Imports = C+D
Source:
Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland https://www.destatis.de/EN/PressServices/Press/pr/2012/12/PE12_432_51.html;jsessionid=5B7D9B7A67D38989763779A0A5711A66.cae4
IIIF Appendix on Sovereign Bond Valuation. There are two approaches to government finance and their implications: (1) simple unpleasant monetarist arithmetic; and (2) simple unpleasant fiscal arithmetic. Both approaches illustrate how sovereign debt can be perceived riskier under profligacy.
First, Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic. Fiscal policy is described by Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) as a time sequence of D(t), t = 1, 2,…t, …, where D is real government expenditures, excluding interest on government debt, less real tax receipts. D(t) is the real deficit excluding real interest payments measured in real time t goods. Monetary policy is described by a time sequence of H(t), t=1,2,…t, …, with H(t) being the stock of base money at time t. In order to simplify analysis, all government debt is considered as being only for one time period, in the form of a one-period bond B(t), issued at time t-1 and maturing at time t. Denote by R(t-1) the real rate of interest on the one-period bond B(t) between t-1 and t. The measurement of B(t-1) is in terms of t-1 goods and [1+R(t-1)] “is measured in time t goods per unit of time t-1 goods” (Sargent and Wallace 1981, 3). Thus, B(t-1)[1+R(t-1)] brings B(t-1) to maturing time t. B(t) represents borrowing by the government from the private sector from t to t+1 in terms of time t goods. The price level at t is denoted by p(t). The budget constraint of Sargent and Wallace (1981, 3, equation 1) is:
D(t) = {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)} + {B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]} (1)
Equation (1) states that the government finances its real deficits into two portions. The first portion, {[H(t) – H(t-1)]/p(t)}, is seigniorage, or “printing money.” The second part,
{B(t) – B(t-1)[1 + R(t-1)]}, is borrowing from the public by issue of interest-bearing securities. Denote population at time t by N(t) and growing by assumption at the constant rate of n, such that:
N(t+1) = (1+n)N(t), n>-1 (2)
The per capita form of the budget constraint is obtained by dividing (1) by N(t) and rearranging:
B(t)/N(t) = {[1+R(t-1)]/(1+n)}x[B(t-1)/N(t-1)]+[D(t)/N(t)] – {[H(t)-H(t-1)]/[N(t)p(t)]} (3)
On the basis of the assumptions of equal constant rate of growth of population and real income, n, constant real rate of return on government securities exceeding growth of economic activity and quantity theory equation of demand for base money, Sargent and Wallace (1981) find that “tighter current monetary policy implies higher future inflation” under fiscal policy dominance of monetary policy. That is, the monetary authority does not permanently influence inflation, lowering inflation now with tighter policy but experiencing higher inflation in the future.
Second, Unpleasant Fiscal Arithmetic. The tool of analysis of Cochrane (2011Jan, 27, equation (16)) is the government debt valuation equation:
(Mt + Bt)/Pt = Et∫(1/Rt, t+τ)st+τdτ (4)
Equation (4) expresses the monetary, Mt, and debt, Bt, liabilities of the government, divided by the price level, Pt, in terms of the expected value discounted by the ex-post rate on government debt, Rt, t+τ, of the future primary surpluses st+τ, which are equal to Tt+τ – Gt+τ or difference between taxes, T, and government expenditures, G. Cochrane (2010A) provides the link to a web appendix demonstrating that it is possible to discount by the ex post Rt, t+τ. The second equation of Cochrane (2011Jan, 5) is:
MtV(it, ·) = PtYt (5)
Conventional analysis of monetary policy contends that fiscal authorities simply adjust primary surpluses, s, to sanction the price level determined by the monetary authority through equation (5), which deprives the debt valuation equation (4) of any role in price level determination. The simple explanation is (Cochrane 2011Jan, 5):
“We are here to think about what happens when [4] exerts more force on the price level. This change may happen by force, when debt, deficits and distorting taxes become large so the Treasury is unable or refuses to follow. Then [4] determines the price level; monetary policy must follow the fiscal lead and ‘passively’ adjust M to satisfy [5]. This change may also happen by choice; monetary policies may be deliberately passive, in which case there is nothing for the Treasury to follow and [4] determines the price level.”
An intuitive interpretation by Cochrane (2011Jan 4) is that when the current real value of government debt exceeds expected future surpluses, economic agents unload government debt to purchase private assets and goods, resulting in inflation. If the risk premium on government debt declines, government debt becomes more valuable, causing a deflationary effect. If the risk premium on government debt increases, government debt becomes less valuable, causing an inflationary effect.
There are multiple conclusions by Cochrane (2011Jan) on the debt/dollar crisis and Global recession, among which the following three:
(1) The flight to quality that magnified the recession was not from goods into money but from private-sector securities into government debt because of the risk premium on private-sector securities; monetary policy consisted of providing liquidity in private-sector markets suffering stress
(2) Increases in liquidity by open-market operations with short-term securities have no impact; quantitative easing can affect the timing but not the rate of inflation; and purchase of private debt can reverse part of the flight to quality
(3) The debt valuation equation has a similar role as the expectation shifting the Phillips curve such that a fiscal inflation can generate stagflation effects similar to those occurring from a loss of anchoring expectations.
© Carlos M. Pelaez, 2010, 2011, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment