I published this commentary on Crikey and in the Newcastle Herald yesterday; I will probably expand on this for my October Debtwatch Report, but here’s a “heads up” before next month–after all, with the speed with which events are unfolding, something else might supplant this topic by then.
Welcome aboard the FF Titanic
Another day, another financial collapse. The effective nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac last week was initially greeted by the market, yet again, as The End Of The Crisis. Then Lehman Brothers teetered and finally fell into bankruptcy. The crisis was, once again, alive and well.
There is a pattern here: a rescue of one once venerable institution with what appear to be oodles of money, a brief euphoria, and then yet another failure at often an even bigger institution.
The key collapse here, and the one that makes it obvious that no rescue is going to stop this crisis, was the failure of Fannie and Freddie. The terms of the rescue require them to sell ten percent of their portfolio of loans every year–which would start at a cool $500 billion in 2010.
But Fannie and Freddie have been the key buyers of (above subprime) mortgage debt for decades. What happens to the economy if, instead of them buying debt, they start trying to sell it? Who on earth is going to buy it?
This is a rescue plan that can’t possibly work, because it attempts to keep the US economy moving at full speed ahead, while simultaneously throwing the engine into full reverse. The US expansion of the past three decades has been debt-fuelled. Now America is going to try to grow just as quickly, while reducing debt.
Good luck. Last year, the growth in private debt added US$4.5 trillion in spending power to the USA’s $14 trillion GDP–a whopping 27 percent of America’s aggregate demand. Now the private sector (including the “conservatored” Fannie and Freddie) is going to try to reduce debt? Then aggregate demand will fall by more than 30 percent. That is the recipe for a Depression, not a rescue.
There is little that the US government can do to counteract this process, especially since it is already deeply in debt itself. Ideally, the government should be increasing its debt and giving the private sector the money it needs to honour its financial commitments—at the cost of a serious haircut (otherwise known as nationalisation). But in this crisis, the government is starting off with its hands tied, and looking puny to boot.
Government debt is already 53% of US GDP, but that’s trivial beside business debt at 72%, household debt at 98%, and–most toxic of all–financial sector at 112%. Not all of that private sector debt is toxic, but even if half of it were, a government attempt to paper over the crisis would triple its accumulated debt.
So the Feds can’t afford to rescue America’s private sector from itself, and every rescue will be far too little, far too late.






September 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
A good summary, and AIG yet to be added.
As a regular reader, I particularly value your comments as they apply to Australia. Your views on how, when and where this will affect Australia would be much appreciated. Which financial institutions are most exposed and how badly? Who else is affected?
No matter what the government says, we cannot escape the consequences of such world events, and the fact that we sit on our own private mountain of debt must eventually trigger equally severe events here. The question is how, when and where?
September 17th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
It seems that the US is now working more on a system of waiting for bankruptcy and then sorting out the debt so the system doesn’t collapse, leaving the shareholders with nothing. Seems that AIG might be different but in their case it might really be liquidity is the problem.
I assume the article in the Newcastle Herald had the title changed to “Credit crunch: Knights at risk”.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Steve,
The data at the end of the article showing different debt types as a percentage of GDP is both helpful and scary! So the US owes over 3 times GDP! If average debt servicing costs are around 5% say, that means they would need to use 15% or so of GDP just to service debt, befor ethey start to repay any. Like I say, scary.
Do you have similar data for other western economies? As an ex-pat pom, living here in Oz I am particularly interested in the UK and Australia numbers. It might help me to understand (or equally confirm my suspicions of) the Treasurers reassurances that the Australian economy is well placed to weather a global economic downturn.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The credit default swaps (CDS) market is in turmoil. The CDS market is a gigantic (some say as large as $700 Trillion, whatever that is) derivatives market that insures corporate debt. For example, Imagine it is 2006 and you are a Japanese bank and you hold a $200M bond issued by Lehman Bros. You might want to take out insurance in the very unlikely event that they will go broke. Because Lehman will never go broke the cost for this is quite cheap. The contingent liability is massive though. Not to worry for the bank that issues the CDS, because “it will never have to pay out”.
Fast forward to today. Lehman has gone broke and the Japanese bank calls for their $200M. They go straight to the company that issued the CDS. But as things looked grim a few weeks/months ago that bank started putting off its risk, by on-selling (at a huge loss, unlikely) or covering that liability by some other derivatives. Either way the mess is sorted out and the Japanese Bank gets their $200M and the company that sold the CDS gets the right to claim $200M worth of assets from Lehman’s remains.
That bit I think I understand. Now the hard bit. Lehman is supposed to owe $640B with “assets” of $670B (The assets are not actually worth that much in cash of course). If we assume that all the $640B is covered by CDS, the banks that sold the swaps have a very large problem. Some sources are speculating that the return on Lehman assets will be between 30% and 40%. Let’s say it is 40%. That means the banks that issued the swaps have overnight inherited losses of $384B.
If that is correct, from one event of default many more banks will have no choice but to default, thus triggering the entire system to crash. Despite the Fed’s efforts. Hasn’t that chain reaction already begun? Have I over reacted? Is there any bankers out there that actually understand the enormity of these liabilities?
Interestingly, this Friday is D day. That is, options, CDS, etc. roll over day. Around this time each month all sorts of contracts are simply rolled over for another month. A few industry whispers (not in the papers yet) are worried that the counterparties will not roll over. That is, the CDS market will just not function. I can only guess, but if that happened, share markets would crash, because no bondholders would feel safe anymore. The market might also crash because those that hold the Lehman risk have to liquidate assets quick smart to cover their margin calls.
This all sounds very dire and I am hoping someone that knows much more than me will come on line and say. “you have got it all wrong. It works like this…”
September 17th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Steve, I don’t think the $500B p.a. of loan sales you are quoting here is correct. As I understand it, the two (GSE’s) F&F must sell their retained loan portfolios at 10% p.a. The retained portfolios are not allowed to exceed $850B and then that figure must be sold down at 10% p.a. The answer being $85B p.a. if it reaches the maximum. This $85B will be in addition to the great majority of loans they already package into bonds and on-sell into the market.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Bullturnedbear
As I understand it, what you are saying is incorrect.
A CDS (credit default swap) issuer has no recourse to the asset being insured.
CDS is an insurance bet/policy/contract between the buyer and the insurer/issuer as a stand alone contract.
That’s why the FED took over AIG. AIG are the biggest player in this type of insurance.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Peter W,
You may be right the CDS issuer just pays out the difference. If that is the case though, the result is the same, the timing might just be in dispute.
Don’t kid yourself that AIG is the only problem though. Many banks around the world (including Australia) trade in CDS. The world wide exposure to Lehman must have been massive. As it approached failure, more and more banks would have been betting on its demise (making profit)but many banks would have already insured its bondholders, thus suffering massive losses.
The system is a house of cards and could tumble any day now.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
AIG also a fair sized player in Exchange traded Notes…guranteeing depositors money for commodity contracts where there was no actual contract for physical commodities to back the Notes. So in the cae of failure of a fund, AIG became liable for the balance of the notes. This has probably led to a fair amount of liquidation of positions in the commodities markets lately and perhaps to falls much larger than would otherwise have been the case. There are more bigger players in the tumbrils waitng their turn at the executioner’s block….scary. The tentacles of the debt are everywhere.
I have vague memories as a child of trying to stop a house of cards falling as the first card or two started to lose its place. I’m getting that exact same feeling!
September 18th, 2008 at 9:16 am
This is indeed a very scary situation. Another thing that I read about was that now any company that has issued a CDS will be a target for “Bear raids”.
The basic idea is that hedge funds know that these companies have liquidity issues and huge problems making good on CDS promises. A lot are also now being threatened with downgrades from Moodys and friends unless they raise capital. So, the hedge funds short sell their stock (sell the stock at todays prices and buy the stock cheaper later to make good on the delivery), thereby reducing the share price (more sellers than buyers) and making it hard for them to raise capital. If the FED bails them out, it will be under similar terms to AIG or Fannie and Freddie (common and preferred tend to zero as the government dilutes them while the company remains standing, wounded and crippled). This is also a perfect outcome for the shorter, who can make good on the delivery of the short sold shares at a cheap price. The SEC will probably re-instate a ban on naked short selling but if they do this a general market crash is more likely as there will not be any short covering rally.
In my opinion, this whole mess has reached the point where the floodgates are about to open and real panic sets in. This is making me nervous – imagine how nervous other highly leveraged and capital impaired institutions (and individuals) must be.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:49 am
In the SMH this morning:
“Australia’s decade-and-a-half-long debt binge is coming to an end and a new era of austerity, in which consumers pay down their debts, live within their means and save for the future, is beginning, the Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, has predicted.”
“predicted”?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Can we really forecast with any probability beyond chance how this crisis will turn out? From my understanding about complex systems there are too many unforeseen variables ( “Black Swans”) that hit the system and generate changes that generally do not have a linear trajectory. Can anyone say that there comes a time when the variables are so extraordinary, as we have today, that complex systems revert closer to a linear model and as a result, forecasting can be done with high certainty? If that is true, wouldn’t the market reflect that sentiment, or are we to assume the market participants collectively are in denial about our short or mid term future?
I guess what I wonder about is if those who review and analyze these markets look at data in a way that attempt to give support to his or her bias? Perhaps we are really at a stage where “doom and gloom” is a foregone conclusion, but are we?
September 18th, 2008 at 10:54 am
NME,
He must have started reading this blog!
Steve Keen is spot on – Glenn Stevens is now calling for debt deflation. It’s coming.
September 18th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
AIG is everywhere in the financial system, and that is the reason behind the furious bailing action. US Treasury has $40billion of nice new Tbills ready for purchase. Given the recent trends in the TIC data, its doubtful that buyers are going to show up.
A large money market fund in the US has copped huge losses and is redeeming at under $1. This is never supposed to happen with safe money market funds. The loss was caused by the fund holding large wads of Lehman debt securities which are now worthless. Imagine if this same money market fund insured the Lehman debt with AIG CDS ?
I note Macquarie Bank was down 22% yesterday, and opened another 17% down today. Anyone in the market for a millionaires factory ? Going cheap(er).
Options rollover day in the US this week could be a little bit tense.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
It seems to me that CDS,s should not be allowed (there should be laws to make them unenforceable).This because they create dangerous feedback by encouraging slack business decisions (don’t worry if it fails we are insured). The risk would be continually increasing until …….
I seems to me that a CDS on a large company is like betting on the end of the world – if you win the bet you and the issuer won’t be there to collect and pay. You just made a charity donation to AIG or whoever. Donations to the Salvation Army would be better spent.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The big worry is cds seem to have been written between consenting adults with little regard for consequences. Many are entirely private agreements between counter-parties and have not been subject to any standards, regulation or any clearing house function. Now that the great unwinding has commenced there is no place for the counter-parties to go to settle up, except court probably. What a mess.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I have a question for you Steve.
I believe that deflation is the most likely outcome from this mess, but there are a lot of people who are talking up the chance of hyperinflation.
Their rationale is that the US (and the West in general – Australian being no different) is a net debtor nation. They have literally been loaned oodles of money but do not have the required capital means to pay it back. For this reason, when push comes to shove, the government will always go down the path of printing their way out of the situation: Here you are foreign creditors, take your money we have just printed for you – it is all worthless now but at least we don’t have any debt.
How realistic is this? Apparently the US treasury is about to issue an emergency T-bill sale to shore up the FED reserves. The FED has been bailing like crazy. It certainly looks like those printing presses are about to fire up and if the political machinery goes down the isolationist path, who cares if an old currency is worthless they may well just start with a new one.
My take has always been that if they tried this, yields on treasuries would spike and the market would not allow this to happen. The government would literally have to put dollars in the hands of people to go pay off their debt (stimulus checks of $100K per person anyone?). Also, banks would not want to see hyperinflation – if debts are too easy to pay back, their right to your future earnings just became severely diminished on a relative scale. However, a lot of them are fighting for their survival at the moment – perhaps they would prefer the hyperinflation than their death. Didn’t Bernanke say he would drop money from helicopters under this scenario?
I know that this is simplifying things and some of this sounds a little crazy, but it does worry me. I have personally positioned myself for the deflationary scenario with some slight hedges for the hyper inflationary route but I would love to know what thoughts Steve Keen (or anyone else) has on how this whole mess is going to play out, because it is definitely going to play out one way or the other. How are others planning to play this crisis out?
September 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
NME, the RBA has always said this was going to end, with their attitude being that if you bought an overpriced asset, well tough luck (it is in some of their discussion papers) and that there responsibility was to maintain the financial system. The big problem is that they have misjudged the effect of the flows of money changing. They couldn’t get it right in the early nineties, but that hasn’t stopped them creating an even worse situation.
Emil, I think it is hard to predict what will happen, other than it wont be good. So much depends on what government, business and individuals do. It is easy for people to become so risk adverse that the economy virtually stops. For example instead of taking a holiday, people will stay home and save the money if they feel their jobs are at risk.
As to playing this crisis out
- avoid debt, especially on real estate
- cash held in major banks, splitting is a good idea
- if necessary, try to find recession proof employment
- last resort, buy a tent and find somewhere cheap to camp. Eating rice and vegetables is cheap and has health benefits.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
If you wanted to be relatively less damaged than the aggregate of Australian you would be out of (short) AUD and out of (short) AUD assets. The evidence has partly unfolded. AUD 97 > 79 ASX 6700 > 4500
September 19th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Regarding my previous the AUD/ASX purchase power in USD has declined close to 45%. That’s not an insignificant decline. If you calculate just these two inputs on fundamental intrinsic value the decline could be be FAR higher.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:44 am
If you are looking for this post, there it is. Welcome aboard the FF Titanic, all we saw was the tip of the iceberg.