Bank Profits a sign of economic sickness, not health
The record $6 billion profit that the Commonwealth Bank is expected to announce today is a sign of an economy that has been taken over by Ponzi finance. Fundamentally, banks make money by creating debt, and the amount of debt we’ve been enticed into taking on is the sign of a sick economy rather than a healthy one. The level of private debt that is actually needed to support business and maintain home ownership at historic levels (ownership levels have fallen over recent years!) is possibly as little as one sixth the current level.

Because of that debt level, bank profits have gone through the roof as a share of GDP. Back before we had a financial crisis—when debt levels were far lower than today—so too were bank profits as a share of GDP. A sustainable level of bank profits appears to be about 1% of GDP. The blowout from this level to virtually six times as much began when bank deregulation began under Hawke and Keating, and then took off as Howard and Costello encouraged everyone to become “Mum and Dad Investors”, which meant borrowing money from the bank and gambling on share and house prices.

As readers of this blog know, I build models of financial instability, and in my models, one symptom of an economy that is headed for a Depression is a rise in bankers share of income at the expense of workers and capitalists. The model below has yet to be calibrated to the data, but the similarities with the actual data are still ominous.

One empirical reality illustrated by the model as well is that even if firms are the ones taking on the debt (as they are in this model—it does not include household borrowing), workers are the ones that pay for this in terms of a declining share of national income: rising debt is associated with a constant profit share of GDP but a falling workers share.
When the crisis really hits, both workers and capitalists suffer as bank income goes through the roof—leading to a Depression. The only way out of this is to abolish large slabs of the debt, and coincidentally to drive bankers share of income back down to levels that reflect is supportive role as a provider of working capital for firms—rather than a parasitic role as the financier of Ponzi schemes.
This is the real debt story of our economy right now. As the first chart above indicates, private debt is far higher than Government debt, even after the increase last year due to Rudd’s stimulus package. Government debt is currently 5.5% of GDP, whereas private debt—even though it has fallen slightly due to business deleveraging—is over 150% of GDP: 27 times the size of Government debt. The so-called debate that the major parties are having over the size of Government debt is an embarrassment.


Philip, for disclosure I am a full time speculator and a part time investor. The options and futures markets are 100% well regulated – they have clearing houses, full margin requirements and full transparency of ownership, transactions etc.
The toxic deriviatives – CDO, CDS, etc – are not regulated. There are no clearing houses, there is no oversight, there is no transparency – you do not know who owns what, to whom, and when.
Please don’t confuse the two – options are vital for price stability (i.e the ability to short bad and/or overpriced companies) and insuring your portfolio, futures are vital for consumers and producers alike to hedge their forward cashflows.
Speculators like me provide the liquidity of both of these underlying markets – these are a good financial invention and are many hundreds of years old.
I hate non-regulated markets – e.g one of the reasons that oil shot up to $140 a barrel was because speculators were given free money – around $500 billion – by the Federal Reserve to go play with. When you can borrow money for next to nothing, then invest in very low yield Treasuries (that are debt financed by the Fed – i.e manipulated to be low yield) and then use that spread – i.e free money – to go speculate in any market you want, KNOWING, that if you c^ck up, the Fed will bail you out…..how the hell is that a regulated market?
BTW – did I just describe the concept of property investment with negative gearing? hmmm…..
You need to regulate the central bank – i.e remove its ability to set/manipulate the price of money, this needs to be freely floated with interest rates set by free banks (which is why we have currency turmoil around the world – central banks introduce inefficiencies and manipulation and don’t allow proper market clearing of intrinsic value of currencies) – as well as re-regulating capital – houses and stock.
Add to this reform by removing the ability of the speculators to be funded and bailed out (e.g LTCM) by central banks and governments, the Wizards will be ineffective. No free money, no Greenspan/Bernanke/Stevens put, nothing but vanilla, regulated derivatives that provide a genuine financial service, alongside the major utility of a bank, to allocate capital from lenders to borrowers.
This system may not be complex, it may not be efficient, it may not pay well for speculators like me, but it provides the robustness to sustain a free market economy.
Kris Sayce at Money Morning using Morgan Stanley data:
How 70% of Property Investors Lose Money
http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20100818/how-70-of-property-investors-lose-money.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MoneyMorningAustralia+%28Money+Morning+Australia%29
The key charts are not produced but Sayce gives an account. And a nod to Steve Keen for help.
@noah cross (#135)
Very impressive, indeed.
But, frankly, although the situation described is certainly serious and quite likely unsustainable, I fail to see why the bubble has to burst, as opposed to a gradual deflation.
Maybe that’s just wishful thinking from me. Can you make the case for a sudden, explosive burst?
nickmakwell,
Stocks on the share market are transparent, have a clearinghouse, etc. like options and futures, but the point is that all the regulation and transparency doesn’t stop speculators driving share prices up and down like a yo-yo, resulting in bubbles and crashes.
nickmakwell,
Without central bank providing liquidity we would have bank runs as in the 19th century. Banks should still be capital constrained and regulated but I am convinced that the era of free banking and gold money is over.
To me the root cause of the instability is leverage. Speculators are needed to aid price discovery and to sell the risk minimalisation service to the hedgers. So they should absorb the risk with their own money but do not poison the banking system by disseminating their risk. If they do it the systemic component of the risk can then only be underwritten by the reserve bank. This is exactly the mechanism leading to bailouts.
This is not only about splitting investment banks but also stopping margin lending.
I would also made all the OTC contracts void. Trading should occur on exchanges only.
Don’t you think that the level of liquidity which was available in the 1960-ties was good enough to lubricate the system?
Banking must be divorced from investment. This is the root cause of the “moral hazard”. Dismantling the state institutions will only further disadvantage the vulnerable groups of people.
Free markets simply do not exist in the universe. They provide full employment only in some economic books written in the 19th century.
I cannot see how free markets can stop our march to global environmental meltdown. That’s why we need strong state institutions (not hijacked by the special interest groups) capable of redirecting the investment on a massive scale.
ak, I agree completely about leverage causing instability. Speculation using your own funds (which is what I do for a living) is for sure a more risk-averse activity than being able to print your own money or rely upon manipulated money markets and currencies to provide you with nearly-free money.
Also agree about OTC vs exchanges.
I didn’t say a stable system should not have central banks – rather, it must have no manipulation of the cost of money by central banks or any bank for that matter . This cost must be found by the market, not by external non-participants. This means removing the ability to set interest rates. If you do not provide a true worth of money, you end up with the excesses as exemplified by the sub-prime crisis, $140 barrel of oil, $1 trillion in Australian housing debt, and pitiful returns on savings.
I don’t see why a private bank cannot legitimately provide the function of a non-investment utility bank. They are called building society’s or mutuals or co-operative banks. Even without creating your own money, a private utility bank can make 6-8% return on equity, based on a fair margin and low fee structure – which is a good solid return for any basic infrastructure for private investors.
This is actually free banking and free markets – people mistake “free” with a “free-for-all melee”, when it actually means free entry and no unnatural protected monopolies, just like they mistake anarchy for “no rules” (its actually no rulers, an extremely substantial difference)
Philip – regulation is not necessarily found in layers of bureaucrats and legislative assemblies piling law upon by-law upon rule upon product ruling upon special interest privilege etc. Regulation is defined by a recognition that if you c^ck up – you lose your capital, i.e enforcing property rights, and removing the moral hazard inherent in having private banks managing the money supply, whilst a powerless and blind central bank sets interest rates totally out of line to the natural cost of money. As I said before, greed needs to be regulated in defining what is investment, and what is speculation – not the mishmash speculative skew towards very poor capital allocation and taxation advantages. Read: negative gearing.
With the removal of moral hazard – in the form of high or infinite leverage due to unsound money creation and manipulation of the market due to monopolies/duopolies/protected companies – a natural progression towards many private (and public) utility, investment, commercial, industrial and other types of banks would occur. The modern bank has disproved the diversification theory – banks need to specialise in certain fields, because interconnectivity and lack of transparency – the hallmarks of bureaucracy – leads to system instability.
I thought we got rid of gold money ak? Wasn’t that in like 1971 or so? The only sound money I can think of at the moment is probably the Swiss Franc of the Norwegian Kroner. The Canadian Loonie is as vulnerable as the Australian Dollar to a similar housing bubble and structurally unsound economy based on selling dirt to Asia. Gold doesn’t look too bad considering the Euro, Yen, USD and most other currencies have almost no intrinsic value, and they certainly have no real yield either. Whether gold will return as money or a bancor equivalent arises is moot for now.
I’m afraid I have as much confidence in state institutions – which operate in your non-existing free market universe of government services – to do as good a job redirecting and allocating capital as I do Goldman Sachs or other vampire squids of this world. When state institutions have no pencil in their backs – like other protected industries – they can cause chaos writ large, and at the expense of the public who are there customers. We need competition in government services, and members, ministers and bureaucrats who can be held accountable, financially and otherwise, for their horrendous mistakes.
Re-regulating capital markets and banking without regulating the fear and greed of state bureaucrats will only lead us further down the road to fascism and nationalism. Unaccountable democracy has gotten us here just as much as unaccountable corporatism.
@ak “but I am convinced that the era of .. gold money is over.”
Careful now ak – it’s dangerous to bet against a 5000 year old currency.
The US is exporting its inflation to emerging economies – how long do you think it will be before movements like this become mainstream?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBTaHvkD1SY
Hi Cyrus,
I strongly disagree with the attempts to understand the economic system while the global historic process is ignored. You are trying to convince me that if I look at the 5 cogs and a spring I will understand how the clockwork operates (what is the essence of the Austrian praxeology)… well I disagree.
Yes what I believe in may sound Marxist but so what?
While commodity-based money may have sense in some cultures (especially in Islam – but only because usury is banned there), it is incompatible with the modern Western and Far Eastern (Chinese) political systems based on the strong state organisations.
This model has clear advantages over any kind of anarchism because it can quickly mobilise resources needed to colonise or destroy (look at the Middle East) these less sophisticated societies.
Do you believe that the history will end because of the impeding collapse? This sounds rather naive to me and there will be no global collapse – only some cultures will have to disappear or change dramatically. I would count the American culture among them.
Do you think that the Politburo of the Chinese Communist Party will decide to abandon the fiat currency (allowing it to control the economy) and introduce the Gold Dinar instead because some Austrian or Islamic scholars have shown the clear moral advantages of that system? Or you believe that the Western societies will abandon usury? (Well I would like to see this but in my opinion this is not the trajectory of the social development there, we’ll be lucky if we manage to limit the propensity of the financial system to redistribute the real income and wealth).
My ultimate argument is that anarchism or anarcho-capitalism of any kind has no chance to mobilise massive resources which have to be invested R&D needed to solve the environmental issues.
Some societies will mobilise these resources some may not.
The Chinese, maybe the Germans or the Japanese will do that.
We (well maybe not me – I would be too old) will all be easting stinking green paste made of genetically-modified algae in 50 years time.
Invented in China and grown in Australia of course…
Cheers,
Adam
@ak 141
“Hi Cyrus,
[snip]
“Do you believe that the history will end because of the impeding collapse? This sounds rather naive to me and there will be no global collapse – only some cultures will have to disappear or change dramatically. I would count the American culture among them.”
This is not a future collapse. The collapse has already happen and this is reflected in the recent cycles of debt deflation that we are seeing around the world. BTW, Cyrusp didn’t say that history would end.
“My ultimate argument is that anarchism or anarcho-capitalism of any kind has no chance to mobilise massive resources which have to be invested R&D needed to solve the environmental issues.”
Who can fully know the future? Your ultimate argument does not stop what is a world wide political and social awakening. We are already in a initial stage of revolution or if you prefer, period of rapid change.
I have been participating in a Discussion in the Linked in group for the Economist and just linked to this excellent article.Last time I visited I didn’t register but have now Its nice to find dialectic seekers of truth in cyberspace and the real world , Thank you Steve for this great site.
I have also really enjoyed reading the comments thanks for all of those too.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3056216&type=member&item=60132719&commentID=44630153&report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_44630153
Thanks Roger,
Nice to know there’s some feedback from my analysis to The Economist too. I expect there’ll be more progress in the popular press treatment of economics than in academic economics for some time to come.
Not sure if you see comments on old posts, but:
Wondering if you’ve found any confirmation using Minsky about the 1% bank profits idea.