Greenspan on calls to contain competitive markets

Économiste Monétaire

I saw this when trawling over Mankiw's blog.

The surprise of recent months is not that global economic growth is slowing, but that there is any growth at all. The credit crunch of the past year has not followed the path of recent economically debilitating episodes characterised by a temporary freezing up of liquidity – 1982, 1989, 1997-8 come to mind. This crisis is different – a once or twice a century event deeply rooted in fears of insolvency of major financial institutions.

This crisis was not brought to closure by the world’s central banks’ injection of huge doses of short-term liquidity. Only when sovereign credits were substituted for private bank credit, first in the case of the UK (Northern Rock) and subsequently in the case of the US (Bear Stearns), was a semblance of stability restored to markets. But the London Interbank Offered Rate spreads on overnight index swaps and credit default swaps of financial institutions have not returned to the modest pre-crisis levels. Fears of insolvency have not, as yet, been fully set aside. There may be numbers of banks and other financial institutions that, at the edge of defaulting, will end up being bailed out by governments.

The insolvency crisis will come to an end only as home prices in the US begin to stabilise and clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world’s mortgage-backed securities. However, US home prices will stabilise only when the absorption of the huge excess of single-family vacant homes that emerged as the US housing boom peaked in 2006 is much further advanced than it is now. New single-family home completions are currently barely under the rate of home demand generated by household formation and replacement needs. Only later this year will the current suppressed level of housing starts be reflected in completion levels consistent with a rapid rate of liquidation of the inventory glut, and this, of course, assumes that current levels of demand for housing hold up.

Pending that outcome, the price of equities worldwide will determine whether the international financial system can maintain a modicum of stability as it eases out of its credit crunch, or falls back into another period of angst and turmoil.

The optimistic case rests on the business world beyond finance. Given this past year’s vast impairment of financial intermediation, nonfinancial corporate business has held up surprisingly well, contributing to a flow of corporate earnings that has helped sustain a stressed global stock market. To be sure, global stock prices are off a fifth from their October 2007 peaks, but still hover at levels last seen in 2006, a demonstrably less fear-ridden period than currently prevails.

A sustained level of global equity prices will be critical if banks are to recapitalise themselves at the higher levels daunted investors now require. The pool of capital is being augmented by a reasonably high level of saving (nearly 24 per cent of world gross domestic product), up significantly from earlier this decade. The flow of new saving will provide some support.
Capital gains, however, are just as important. This can best be observed in the context of the consolidated balance sheet of the world economy. All debt and derivative claims offset in global accounting, leaving real physical and intellectual assets and their market value reflected as net worth. Capital gains cannot finance new physical investment, but do add to global net worth. If, for whatever reason, discounting of prospective future earnings engendered by the world’s physical capital stock declines, the market value of that capital stock rises with no offsetting liability. There is accordingly a larger value of equity shoring up the capital of financial or nonfinancial businesses. Should that discount rate reverse, the value of world equity will fall. Consequently, lower global stock prices could impede the recapitalisation of banks and other financial institutions. Debt issuance would also be suppressed as it leverages off the level of equity.

Globalisation is at the root of the past decade’s unprecedented surge in world economic activity. The growth in the volume of global trade has far exceeded the pace of world real GDP growth for decades. Between 2001 and 2007 global cross-border investments (at market values) rose almost two-thirds faster than world nominal GDP, according to data from the International Monetary Fund.

The economic edifice – market capitalism – that has fostered this expansion is now being pilloried for the pause and partial retrenchment. The cause of our economic despair, however, is human nature’s propensity to sway from fear to euphoria and back, a condition that no economic paradigm has proved capable of suppressing without severe hardship. Regulation, the alleged effective solution to today’s crisis, has never been able to eliminate history’s crises.

A financial crisis is heralded, in fact defined, by sharp discontinuities of asset prices. The crisis must thus be unanticipated. The fact that risk was heavily underpriced for much of this decade was broadly recognised in the financial community, but the timing of the sharp price correction was nonetheless a surprise.

Recent history is replete with such underpricing persisting for years. Those market players who withdraw from “long” commitments at the first sign of an excess of exuberance, risk losing market share. They thus continue “to dance” as Chuck Prince, the former Citigroup chairman put it, but always assume they will have time to exit the markets. The vast majority invariably fail. When the current crisis emerged, it was assumed that the weak links would be unregulated hedge and private funds. The losses, however, have been predominately in the most heavily regulated institutions – banks.

We may not easily confront or accept the price dynamics of home and equity prices, but we can fend off cries of political despair which counsel the containment of competitive markets. It is essential that we do so. The remarkably strong performance of the world economy since the near universal adoption of market capitalism is testament to the benefits of increasing economic flexibility.

It has become hard for democratic societies accustomed to prosperity to see it as anything other than the result of their deft political management. In reality, the past decade has seen mounting global forces (the international version of Adam Smith’s invisible hand) quietly displacing government control of economic affairs. Since early this decade, central banks have had to cede control of long-term interest rates to global market forces. Previously heavily controlled economies – such as China, Russia and India – have embraced competitive markets in lieu of bureaucratic edict. The danger is that some governments, bedevilled by emerging inflationary forces, will endeavour to reassert their grip on economic affairs. If that becomes widespread, globalisation could reverse – at awesome cost.

©Financial Times

Source

Flamed Diving

I personally question the usefulness in having a highly competitive financial sector, particularly for more 'traditional' banking. Are the gains in efficiency worth risking all of our savings/houses? This may sound radical, but I believe the best system to adopt, for commerical banks at least, is for the government to foster an oligopoly of giant banks with a supplement of smaller specialist banks for mortgages, etc. Although quite how to do this in a globalised world is another matter.

But with the stability/efficiency trade-off wrt to banking, I believe one should aim for stability.

silverharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I personally question the usefulness in having a highly competitive financial sector, particularly for more 'traditional' banking. Are the gains in efficiency worth risking all of our savings/houses? This may sound radical, but I believe the best system to adopt, for commerical banks at least, is for the government to foster an oligopoly of giant banks with a supplement of smaller specialist banks for mortgages, etc. Although quite how to do this in a globalised world is another matter.

But with the stability/efficiency trade-off wrt to banking, I believe one should aim for stability.

I agree with your sentiment but given that the financial sector is surrounded by such operators as central banks, and political pressure which is very short term oriented I'm not sure the structure of financial institutions is that critical.
looking at the US, one of the major factors not often commented on is the recycling of Asian trade surpluses back into US bonds which caused interest rates/risk to be artificially depressed, this was tolerated by the Fed (who mislabled this as a savings glut???) and Treasury so as not to rock the boat, but look at the damage this “policy” had
Another factor concerning the mortgage market was the political obsession with trying to get more people to own their own homes for short term political gain, this sucked people into the housing market who ought not to have been there.
I would also be very critical of the Fed for allowing credit growth to get out of control after the 2000 bust, had they allowed the US to go through a “common garden” type recession, then this bubble and crash wouldn’t have happened.
As simple as I can state it is that if markets are interfered with or manipulated, then a greater risk is stored up for the future.