Debt Britannia
PDF Format: Debtwatch Subscribers; CfESI Subscribers
Data: Debtwatch Subscribers; CfESI Subscribers
As much as I criticize the US of A for its economic management, I can’t fault its statistical agencies on the collection and dissemination of data: data is readily available and almost always in an easily accessible format. That, and the fact that it’s the world’s biggest economy, is why most of my analysis is of the US. Australia’s ABS deserves similar accolades for making data readily accessible and relatively easy to locate.
The UK data source, the Office of National Statistics, is almost impenetrable by comparison—it’s the statistical system that Sir Humphrey Appleby would design. It gives the appearance of accessibility, yet either drowns you in so much data in response to any query that you give up, or which, when you get to what you think you want, returns rubbish.
For example, you’d think following the sequence “Economy—UK Sector Accounts—Financial Assets and Liabilities” would actually take you to something resembling the USA’s Flow of Funds, wouldn’t you?
Guess again. Figure 1 shows what it returns you: no data, no publications, but links to four methodology papers on Investment Trusts. “Well done, Bernard!”
Figure 1

Given this state of affairs (or these affairs of state?), I haven’t bothered trying to put together a debt profile of the UK as I have for Australia and the USA—which of course shows the success of the Appleby method. But as so often happens, the method backfired when Morgan Stanley, using rather more research resources than I can bring to bear, published a chart of national indebtedness in which the UK was right at the top—with a staggering 950% private debt to GDP ratio, and a financial sector debt ratio alone of over 600%.
Figure 2: Morgan Stanley global debt ratio calculations
I expect that Sir Humphrey’s descendants are now busy putting out this brush fire with claims of double-counting, but even the UK Treasury’s Budget Report admits to a peak private sector debt to GDP ratio of over 450 percent, with the finance sector ratio alone being 250%:
“Over the pre-crisis decade, developments in the UK economy were driven by unsustainable levels of private sector debt and rising public sector debt. Indeed, it has been estimated that the UK became the most indebted country in the world.
Chart 1.1 highlights the rise in private sector debt in the UK. Households took on rising levels of mortgage debt to buy increasingly expensive housing, while by 2008 the debt of nonfinancial companies reached 110 per cent of GDP. Within the financial sector, the accumulation of debt was even greater. By 2007, the UK financial system had become the most highly leveraged of any major economy…” (UK Budget Report, 2011)
Figure 3: UK Treasury private debt to GDP figures

To put this into perspective, the USA’s private debt to GDP ratio peaked at 303% of GDP, and the rapid decline in this debt to its current level is what has caused its “Great Recession”. I never thought that another developed economy could make the USA’s debt bubble look trivial, but clearly I was wrong.
Figure 4: And you thought America had a debt bubble…

As well as aggregate UK private debt exceeding America’s, the UK also has a higher debt to GDP ratio for every sector. However as usual, government debt, about which politicians and neoclassical economists obsess, is the smallest component of total debt, and has only started to grow after the crisis began. To emphasise one point on which I emphatically agree with MMT economists, public debt is not the problem, and attempting to reduce public debt now is the wrong policy—from my perspective, because it would add public sector deleveraging to private sector deleveraging, thus exacerbating the underlying problem of deleveraging. Rather than obsessing about public debt now, politicians and economists should have been concerned about rising private debt in the previous two decades.
UK household debt grew along similar lines to USA household debt, but continued growing as US household debt started to taper. It is now falling, but still exceeds even Australia’s household debt ratio—though Australia holds the dubious record for the fastest rate of growth of household debt since 1990.
Figure 5

While UK households were relative laggards in the rate of growth of debt, UK businesses showed how it was done by tripling their indebtedness in just over 2 decades, from the post-1987 Stock Market Crash level of 38% of GDP to a whopping 118% at the end of 2009.
Figure 6

But “Cardboard Box? You were lucky!”. The Four Yorkshireman award for digging a hole faster than anybody else goes to the UK finance sector. The USA and UK both began the post-1987 Stock Market era with roughly comparable levels of finance sector debt—roughly 50% for the UK and 40% for the USA. But two decades later, UK finance sector debt peaked at 261% of GDP, more than twice the US level of 123% (I can’t show Australia’s finance sector debt since the RBA doesn’t separately record it, but the Morgan Stanley data in Figure 2 implies that it’s larger than America’s).
Figure 7

The combination makes the UK the Private Debt Capital of the G20 world.
Figure 8

All this implies that when a debt slowdown hits the UK, it could do so with even more impact than it did in the USA. As I’ve argued extensively elsewhere, aggregate demand in a credit-based economy is income plus the change in debt. This perspective puts the UK’s staggering dependence upon private debt into sharp relief; explains why—as yet—it hasn’t suffered as sharp a downturn as has the USA; and also implies that that day of reckoning may be approaching. Take a good look at Figure 9 and Figure 10.
Figure 9: British Aggregate Demand

Figure 10: American Aggregate Demand

Firstly, note that the peak debt contribution to aggregate demand was far higher in the UK than the USA: in 2008, the UK GDP was roughly 1.4 trillion pounds while the increase in debt was 800 billion, yielding total private sector spending (on assets as well as goods and services) of over 2.2 trillion; the US numbers are roughly 14 trillion dollars for GDP and 4 trillion for the increase in debt.
Secondly, the USA went straight from leveraging to deleveraging, with the change in debt going from adding $4 trillion in 2008 to subtracting 2.5 trillion in 2010. In the UK, there have been 4 dips into deleveraging, but 3 of them have subsequently been reversed, and the worst to date (in 2010) reduced aggregate demand by only 100 billion—40% of the impact of the peak decline in the USA.
But thirdly, another period of deleveraging has just begun in the UK, whereas the rate of decline of debt has slowed in the USA. Things aren’t looking rosy for 2012 in the USA, but they could be far worse in the UK.
Figure 11 compares debt-financed demand in the two countries: the UK’s debt binge has been strikingly larger, far more volatile, and is now headed down while the USA—though still deleveraging—is headed up.
Figure 11

The role of debt in driving both employment and asset prices is very apparent. The boom years of the UK economy from 1993 till 2008 were in fact its borrow years.
Figure 12

I prefer to correlate the Credit Accelerator to change in asset prices, but these next two figures are useful in showing the level of UK asset prices, as well as their correlation with the change in private debt.
Figure 13

Figure 14

The UK Credit Accelerator
As explained elsewhere (“A much more nebulous conception“), since the change in private debt is an important component of aggregate demand, and aggregate demand is expended on both commodities and assets, the acceleration of private debt will be correlated to the change in unemployment and the change in asset prices. This is very apparent in the UK data, and all 3 measures—unemployment, the FTSE and real house prices—are now under the influence of negative credit accelerators.
Figure 15

Figure 16

Figure 17

Add to this private sector deleveraging a government committed to a deluded program of “expansionary fiscal consolidation“, and the indications are that the UK will be a leader in the global recession stakes in 2012.



Hey guys I have a question I apologise that it has nothing to do with this post. I was just wondering what do you think of the economist Amartya Sen? He seems to be somewhat out of step with the neoclassicals but also accepted (rather like Stiglitz)? Just wondering what people think of him, I am trying to work out his economics. Thanks!
By the way love the blog I do read it I just don’t comment much!
Sorry Mugs, there must be a hassle in your email account then. I’ll check.
For some reason you were still listed as a Free Subscriber, even though you’ve joined at the Keen level. What may have happened is that you “re-joined” rather than upgrading, leaving your old username as a Free still, but without activating a new one.
Try again now and let me know what happens.
All fixed Steve, thanks.
I’m guessing an economist or someone interested in the topic will know something about him.
@ Jason webb January 2, 2012 at 3:44 am
Take the case of MF Global. A client who purchases a derivative of face value
$100,000 through the firm, has to deposit an initial margin of $10,000 (say) as
collateral (hypothecation). MF Global then takes the $10,000 to JP Morgan as
collateral (re-hypothecation) to borrow another $100,000 (say) to speculate with other derivatives (unknown exposure).
The $10,000 deposit and the loan at JP Morgan (a bank) would be on the balance sheet of the financial sector, but ultimate size of derivative exposures are not offically recorded or regulated. In a previous post, I guess the UK financial sector assets must be about the same as US financial sector assets, totalling about $30 trillion combined. Much of this amount is hypothecation and re-hypothecation for the $600 trillion or more of global derivatives exposure, an average leverage ratio of more than 20.
Many down play the risk of $600 trillion of gross exposure. If you put down $10,000 to buy $100,000 of stock, your risk is not $10,000, but $100,000. You are wiped out by a 10 percent fall in stock prices. Things can get very messy for you and your stockbroker if the stockmarket fell 15 percent (say) very quickly. You may not be able meet the margin call, you may try to leave town, there may be litigation etc.
In the above example where MF Global went bankcrupt due to unsuccessful speculation, the mess is due to the legal uncertainty about who has the priority claim on the $10,000 collateral, JP Morgan or MF Global clients? The main problem for macroeconomics is not so much who gains and who loses (as it nets out, usually favouring the villains), but the market becomes dysfunctional, because capital becomes risk-adverse due to increased uncertainty.
The higher the debt level or leverage, through derivatives or outright borrowing, the higher the risk that the process of lending fails or comes to a grinding halt and reverses into deleveraging. (We ain’t seen nothin’ yet, as derivatives are still untamed.)
@Lyonwiss
January 2, 2012 at 1:12 pm | #
……
In the above example where MF Global went bankcrupt due to unsuccessful speculation, the mess is due to the legal uncertainty about who has the priority claim on the $10,000 collateral, JP Morgan or MF Global clients? The main problem for macroeconomics is not so much who gains and who loses (as it nets out, usually favouring the villains), but the market becomes dysfunctional, because capital becomes risk-adverse due to increased uncertainty.”
There is no uncertainty. JP Morgan is not far behind Goldman Sachs as far as priority goes. Here are 808,799 good reasons why JP Morgan will keep the money:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
I take the view that the current account is a good indicator of a counties ability to service its debt. On this basis the UK is in reasonable shape:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&v=145
However the current account was worst on record in Q3 2011 so might be a sign that the quality of the debt is impaired. There is so much folly with financial products that it is impossible to know all the linkages and how they will respond in a crisis.
London finances a large portion of mining activity around the globe. If China continues to decline then mining profits will soon be non-existent and highly geared operations will be at risk – as will the cash streams of their lenders.
Not good prospects for work in London:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/8978239/UK-jobs-outlook-is-the-worst-for-20-years.html
Anyone here close to what is happening in the UK? Max Keiser made a prediction for 2012 yesterday that the UK would fall over before Europe and US – what is he looking at other than this blog!!
He also predicted Australia would jump in the crisis stakes if China continues to decline – nothing new but some inevitability in his comments.
I have some questions for Steve or anyone else willing to answer.
I understand QE funds go to selected financial institutions. Is the current rate on these funds zero in the US?
I gather a good proportion of these funds are used by the selected few to currently purchasing US Treasury bonds at the going rate ranging from zero to 3%, risk free. Is this correct?
Surely this gift to the favoured few from government contravenes anit-competition law in the US. What laws?
Title: Thanks for The Private Reply, Steve
Awaiting those punches.
RickW
“Anyone here close to what is happening in the UK? Max Keiser made a prediction for 2012 yesterday that the UK would fall over before Europe and US – what is he looking at other than this blog!!”
I like Max. But don’t take his comments (not his guests that can be very good at times) too seriously.
The UK and US Governments have their own central bank and a floating currency so can always service their debt. This is an easily provable fact. This should protect the Uk and US no matter what.
The ECB will I believe operate water the plant just before it dies operations during 2012. In other words the ECB will step in to buy bonds (using journal entries NOT German money) as a last resort to stop the Euro collapsing. But this will only delay the inevitable.
“I understand QE funds go to selected financial institutions. Is the current rate on these funds zero in the US?”
Slightly above zero but so what
QE is an asset swap. The Fed does NOT just give banks Fed reserves as a gift. The bank must front up with security and MUST pay the reserves back. So as I see it a lot of the comments on the Fed is just nonsense. The Fed (or any central bank) is the people friend though. Especially the Fed. (without the Fed the world would be in a terrible state now).
Without a central bank we can not all save and will likely return to a few having all the money and the rest being buried in debt. Be aware of this when ‘friends of the people’ criticise central banks. Look at Euro countries for clear evidence of the dangers of a country giving up their central bank.
@RJ
January 2, 2012 at 9:15 pm | #
…….
Slightly above zero but so what
QE is an asset swap. The Fed does NOT just give banks Fed reserves as a gift. The bank must front up with security and MUST pay the reserves back. So as I see it a lot of the comments on the Fed is just nonsense. The Fed (or any central bank) is the people friend though. Especially the Fed. (without the Fed the world would be in a terrible state now).”
The current system of favoured institutions is bleeding public funds into the bank coffers. Why not provide zero interest loans direct to the public so they can play the same game as the favoured banks and buy government bonds as well?
@RJ
…..
The UK and US Governments have their own central bank and a floating currency so can always service their debt. This is an easily provable fact. This should protect the Uk and US no matter what.”
I was considering the level of private debt not government debt. My bet is the quality of the investments is deteriorating and likely an increasing portion is impaired because the current account is deteriorating despite austerity measures. Will any UK banks need bailouts to survive in 2012?
Zimbabawe has a fiat currency and can always service its government debt in ZWD, except that no one uses the ZWD any more, as foreign currencies have been legalized for transactions since 2009. The same could happen to the GBP unless UK mends its ways.
Title: An (Evolutionary) Response to Lyonwiss
If issuing large amount of government money can solve problems, I can retire now and start chasing skirts for the rest of my life (about 27 years left base on current death table).
“Why not provide zero interest loans direct to the public ”
Because Govt deficits does even better. It in effect gives money to the recipient. From a series of journal entries.
If tax rates for example are cut then people have more money in their bank account. And the Govt does journal entries to fund this tax shortfall.
Lyonwise
“Zimbabawe has a fiat currency and can always service its government debt in”
I hope you are not comparing Zimbabwe to the US or UK.
@RJ
January 2, 2012 at 10:40 pm | #
…..
If tax rates for example are cut then people have more money in their bank account. And the Govt does journal entries to fund this tax shortfall.”
So why isn’t US government making tax cuts rather than the Fed creating money to supply to its favoured institutions?
@ RJ January 2, 2012 at 10:42 pm
You said: “The UK and US Governments have their own central bank and a floating currency so can always service their debt.” You also said: “This should protect the Uk and US no matter what.” I was pointing out that Zimbabawe also has its own central bank and a floating currency so that it can always service its debt. This did not protect Zimbabwe “no matter what”.
Your reasoning is absurd. I cannot make it any simpler than to say, having a fiat currency (by itself) does not solve all economic problems of a sovereign country. Unless the economic problems, which a fiat currency cannot solve, are addressed in the UK and the US, then the GBP and USD could eventually be abandoned like the ZWD, (like currency crashes).
Rickw
“Why not provide zero interest loans direct to the public so they can play the same game as the favoured banks and buy government bonds as well?”
Money doesnt need to be lent to the public for the purpose of conducting monetary policy. It should just be transfered to the public in measured regular intervals without it being repaid whenever monetary stimulus is required. The central bank should not adjust interst rates on lending to banks it should just deal with the public.
lyonwise
So you are comparing the US and UK to Zimbabwe
One the dangers from excess Govt deficits (or money printing) is currency depreciation.
But a powerful economy like the UK or US should be easily able to handle any currency depreciation resulting from a economic shock. Zimbabwe could not.
They tried to print money to buy US dollars and their currency collapsed. This will never happen to the US and there is almost no chance of it happening to the UK. The currency value might fall but not seriously.
“Your reasoning is absurd”.
And what reasoning is absurd. My comments are based on facts on money and banking today. Many though are hopelessly lost. They refuse to accept facts about money and debt. Especially Govt debt and the incredible power sound Govts with a central bank have. A power the Euro countries have now given away.
“So why isn’t US government making tax cuts rather than the Fed creating money to supply to its favoured institutions?”
The US Govt is running a deficit. In my opinion though it should be much higher. Say from large tax cuts
Title: Correction
37 years left base on current death table. Hooray…