sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

No longer seeing a doom-loop, Nouriel Roubini now anticipates a short and shallow recession, though with the potential for more worrying knock-on effects

Economy / opinion
No longer seeing a doom-loop, Nouriel Roubini now anticipates a short and shallow recession, though with the potential for more worrying knock-on effects
Trader reflected in screens

There are currently four scenarios for the global economic outlook. Three of these entail potentially serious risks with far-reaching implications for markets.

The most positive is a “soft landing,” where central banks in the advanced economies manage to bring inflation back down to their 2% targets without triggering a recession. There is also the possibility of a softish landing. Here the inflation target is achieved, but through a relatively mild (short and shallow) recession.

The third scenario is a hard landing, where returning to 2% inflation requires a protracted recession with potentially severe financial instability (such as more bank distress and highly leveraged agents suffering serious debt-servicing difficulties). If the effort to tame inflation triggers severe economic and financial instability, a fourth scenario becomes possible: central banks wimp out and decide to allow for above-target inflation, risking a de-anchoring of inflation expectations and a persistent wage-price spiral.

As matters stand, the eurozone is already in a technical recession, with GDP having fallen in the fourth quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023, and with inflation still well above target (despite its recent decline). The United Kingdom is not yet in a recession, but growth has slowed sharply and inflation remains stubbornly high (above the OECD average). And the United States suffered a sharp slowdown in the first quarter even as core inflation (which excludes food and energy prices) remained high (though it is falling, it remains above 5%).

Meanwhile, China’s post-COVID recovery seems to have stalled, calling into question the government’s relatively modest 5% growth target for 2023. And other emerging-market and frontier economies are exhibiting relatively anemic growth relative to their potential (with the exception of India), with many still suffering from very high inflation.

Which of the four scenarios is most likely? Although inflation has fallen in most advanced economies, it has not done so as fast as central banks hoped, partly because labour-market tightness and rapid wage growth have added to the inflationary pressure in labour-intensive services sectors. Moreover, expansionary fiscal policies are still feeding demand and contributing to the persistence of inflation.

This has made it more difficult for central banks to fulfill their price-stability mandate. Market expectations that central banks were done with interest-rate hikes and would even begin to cut rates in the second half of 2023 have been dashed. The US Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, and most other major central banks will have to raise rates even more before they can pause. As they do, the economic slowdown will become more persistent, raising the risk of an economic contraction and new debt and banking stresses.

At the same time, geopolitical developments – some of which come out of the blue, like the Wagner Group’s abortive march on Moscow – continue to push the world toward instability, deglobalisation, and greater fragmentation. And now that China’s recovery is losing steam, it must either pursue aggressive stimulus policies – with implications for inflation globally – or risk significantly undershooting its growth target.

On the positive side, the risk of a severe credit crunch has declined since the banking failures in March, and some commodity prices have softened (partly owing to expectations of a recession), helping to temper goods inflation. The risk of a hard landing (scenario three) therefore appears lower than it was a few months ago. But with stubbornly high wage growth and core inflation forcing central banks to make additional rate hikes, a short and shallow recession over the next year (scenario two) has become much more likely.

Worse, if a mild recession does materialise, it may further erode consumer and business sentiment, thus creating the conditions for a more severe and protracted downturn and adding to the risk of financial and credit stress. Faced with the possibility of the second scenario evolving into the third, central banks might blink and allow inflation to remain well above 2%, rather than risk triggering a severe economic and financial crisis.

Thus, the monetary-policy trilemma of the early 2020s remains. Central banks face the exceedingly difficult task of achieving price stability, growth stability (no recession), and financial stability simultaneously.

What are the implications for asset prices in these scenarios? So far, US and global equities have reversed their 2022 bear market, and bond yields have moved slightly lower – a pattern that is consistent with a soft landing for the world economy, where inflation falls toward the target rate and a growth contraction is avoided. Moreover, US equities – mostly tech stocks – have been bolstered by the hype around generative artificial intelligence.

But even a short and shallow recession – let alone a hard landing – would cause significant declines in US and global equities. And if central banks were then to blink, the resulting increase in inflation expectations would drive up long-term bond yields and eventually hurt stock prices, owing to the higher discount factor that would be applied to dividends.

While a severe hurricane for the global economy looks less likely than it did a few months ago, we are still likely to encounter a tropical storm that could cause significant economic and financial damage.


*Nouriel Roubini, Professor Emeritus of Economics at New York University’s Stern School of Business, is Chief Economist at Atlas Capital Team and the author of Megathreats: Ten Dangerous Trends That Imperil Our Future, and How to Survive Them (Little, Brown and Company, 2022). Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2023, published here with permission.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

32 Comments

Good article.

I say scenario 4 or a fifth scenario, a moderate recession (ie. between his ‘softish’ recession of Scenario 2, and the hard landing of scenario 3)

Also likely to vary from country. I think NZ is more likely to get Scenario 3 or 4, while the USA is more likely to see Scenario 2.

Up
0

Yes I'm trying to wrap my head around where we'll land now. I'm wondering what the election influences on this might be. Ultimately, the hand has been dealt, however the government can either partially negate or invigorate the outcome. ie a light recession alongside a cut in govt spending or increase in tax could make the recession either slightly deeper or slightly longer. An increase in productive spending alongside a credit crunch may see marginal growth, but if that credit crunch is relieved somehow we will get high inflation.

A balance between fiscal and monetary policy for sure. I feel a reduction in govt spending without adequate reduction in tax, along side a credit crunch would be an absolute disaster for us all.

Up
0

"I think NZ is more likely to get Scenario 3 or 4, while the USA is more likely to see Scenario 2" - don't you think we are already through the worst, assuming we are at peak OCR? I feel like other countries have more to fear than us...

Up
1

So far we are through the worst, yes. Our technical recession with -0.1% growth in the last quarter is really margin-of-error stuff. If it weren't for the bad weather and teacher strikes it wouldn't have happened.

However if the rest of the world goes into a recession, that can lead to detereorating conditions here. But still if RoW gets scenario 2, I'd expect NZ to be scenario 2 also.

Up
0

No I don’t. Not even close.
Higher unemployment usually lags recession / weak economic data, significantly.

Look at the 07-09 period, as an example.

A lot of mortgage holders still need to refinance over the coming 6 months.

The fall out from the construction slump is yet to truly hit.

I think things will get pretty grim here soon, the worst might be between late this year and late 2024.

But I am not a total DGM. I think the recession will be moderate, not really bad. And it will be patchy.

Up
2

Two years ago the average 2yr mortgage rate was just over 2.5%, now it is 6.5%. Seeing as 2yr is one of the most popular choices, there are still a lot of people yet to feel the full pain coming. 

Up
0

Very good article and nice to see something informative other than housing. I think New Zealand is at a bit of a cross roads come the October election. To me personally I have always said to myself it makes no difference if Labour or if National get in but the level of incompetence shown over the last few years by Labour is now impacting everyone. Not so sure a "soft landing" is what most people here are going to experience over the next 12 months, but hey you voted for this. Honestly its make or break time, I encourage everyone to get out and vote, this year should be a record turnout.

Up
8

I think now is the time for strong investment in productive industry and innovation. I'm just not seeing that with National, thought there is a hint of it with Labour. I am starting believe with National we're likely to get a slightly deeper recession and asset price destruction on the promise of major cuts in spending and tax incentives for speculation. I think they just want to make houses "cheap" for their cashed up mates, unfortunately that's the vibe I get.

As for post covid era, National said they would have handled it the same so we can't argue we'd be in a better position in that regard. In fact most of the west handled it the same.

For me, about 1 - 2 years ago it was a slam dunk election for National, had my vote. Now, I'd rather not.

Up
10

Do you think ACT would be better for investing in productive industries?

Up
0

Quite the contrary - ACT's neoliberal/libertarian stance on capital flows achieving productive outcomes has been proven wrong several times.

After years of pushing for greater liberalisation of capital markets, even IMF has been rethinking this stance and actually distanced itself from it in 2022. It outrightly noted that the benefits of free capital flows are limited but in the longer term are associated with greater instability.

The Anglosphere is perhaps the few remaining nations to still hold the orthodox view that free capital flows allow a more efficient allocation of resources. Not a coincidence that the same countries have generally lower productivity among developed peers (and higher contribution of financial services as a % of GDP).

Up
11

I think their tax policy is an overall increase in income tax, and likely to offset any benefits of spending dramatically.

NB: I haven't actually quantified this, whether or not ACT would be an increase in overall take - simply an "At first glance, this looks bad." as anybody earning $80k or less would be hit with an increase in tax due to the one step progression, and that figure is well above the mean and median individual income. Worst hit would likely be young and old couples. Seems like a policy for nobody.

Up
2

Plus, guns. Seriously!?

Up
1

Am I the only one confused by their tax policy? https://www.act.org.nz/tax 

The thresholds would change as follows:

By 2023/24, the tax burden on the average New Zealander will be $1,236 per year lower under ACT than Labour. We will have delivered a tax cut for every earner.

In order to ensure that every earner would receive a tax cut, ACT would also create a new Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), starting in fiscal year 2022/23. This tax offset would be worth $800 per annum for all earners earning between $12,000 and $48,000. It would gradually grow at a rate of 8% from $0 per year for taxpayers earning $2,000 to the full $800 for taxpayers earning $12,000. At incomes above $48,000, the offset would abate at a rate of 8%, reaching $0 at an income of $58,000.

Up
1

Hmm is this new? Or did I miss it?

I was referring to the 17.5% up to $70k and 28% above $70k. Which would be a tax increase for anybody earning less than 80k.

Agree this rebate seems confusing. Though I do enjoy the "rewarding success!" and follow up tax incentives for asset speculation for the comedic value.

Up
0

Two thresholds with a rebate seems very complex compared to say three thresholds.

Didn't they have a completely flat rate in the past? 

Up
0

Yeah didn't understand that part of their policy, even with their rebate if you earn under $12000 you end up with an effective tax increase. If they're going to have a rebate why not just have third lower bracket that captures everyone rather than complicate things with a rebate.

Up
1

I think the housing market will absolutely tank under Labour but probably increase under National. So Labour would cause a big recession but leave us in a better place afterwards while National will give us short term growth but make the next crash even bigger. 

Up
9

David Seymour has already said that he doesn't want to prop up a John Key-style National government. He wants serious and large cuts to government spending.

This is not center-left Labour/Greens vs center-right National/Act.

It is center-left Labour/Greens vs right National/Act.

Up
3

I think the persistence of inflation is being underestimated. 

My reasoning: inflation has been driven in part by the wealth effect of asset prices. As asset prices rise, demand rises too because asset-holders are nominally wealthier.

If inflation starts to abate, and central banks start to cut rates - or even look like they might be thinking about cutting rates - those asset prices will spike up again. As we see in the current rally.

Hence driving up inflation again. The cycle can't be broken until asset prices become re-attached to economic fundamentals rather than interest rates and credit cycles, as they presently are. And what event it takes to reassert the relevance of real-world factors is hard to say, but it will have to be something serious.

Up
6

As soon as you realise that "Asset prices"  don't actually need to be tied to, or attached to what you earn you can get back in touch with reality. The next RBNZ review on 12th July will be interesting, I think their plan now is to HOLD come hell or high water. Inflation is here to stay for ages.

Up
3

Hahaha. So wrong. Asset prices are always and ultimately tied to cashflows. 

Up
3

Agree. NZ will need to raise rates again probably starting before the election. The US and AUS are both going to continue raising, and we will pretty much follow that or risk higher inflation again due to a lower dollar.

I see floating rates at some second tier lenders over 10,5%. Those rates will be at the main banks in the short to medium term. Swap rates are continuing to creep up.

These people that say we are through the worst of it and rates will be cut soon are wrong. The worst is quite a way off. Property prices will keep going down whether we get Labour or National. It will be worse with Labour as the economy will not recover as quickly because we have already seen they are hopeless at even basic management of anything, so will perform poorly in a recession as most now realise.

 

 

 

Up
0

OK mental note to never take anything you say seriously ever again............       most people borrow on assets you fool

Up
1

I think the "wealth effect" is a bit BS. Yes, lowering interest rates caused house prices to go up, but they also created a lot more disposable income for people with existing mortgages. I think it was more about disposable income that people "feeling" wealthier.

Up
0

Firstly, I hold N Roubini in high esteem, but I'm miffed by his conclusion that only "a mild recession" is most likely.  He points to numerous serious headwinds, to which I would add commercial RE markets being massively overvalued in the bank's books and to me, all these issues are not conclusive to leading to a mild recession.  I would also like to ask why he makes this statement: "the risk of a severe credit crunch has declined since the banking failures in March". Please give us a reason.

For me, and I have stated this before, central banks will ultimately be forced to accept a higher target inflation rate, so I'm believe in scenario 4 and I think it will happen in 2024.

Up
0

With you on that one. Can't see it - maybe they know something we don't. For banks of CMBS in the states, the writing is on the wall and it is only a matter of time.

Up
0

The unnerving thing for New Zealand is that it is no longer 'ready'. We got out of the blocks early, and stayed ahead until the end of last month. Now it feels like we're standing still, and everyone else has caught up. In other words, we are all back in the same boat. Which is fine IF the boat doesn't sink.

What we've lost is our readiness advantage. We would have survived whatever might have come out of the unpredictable economic night. Now? We'll go down with the rest.

Up
2

Ready? I reckon our 8-9% current account deficit to GDP means we're on borrowed time (literally). This rolling deficit means we are spending more than we earn and are utilising the national savings of other countries to meet our excess demands.

This ends in one of 2 ways: either aggregate demand drops significantly from a hard recession 'correcting' our inflated living standards or we produce and export more to the world. Which scenario do you think is more likely?

Up
5

and a persistent wage-price spiral.

this implies inflation was caused by wage growth, which it was not. 

In a inflation environment, it makes everyone poor, but not poor in the same degree. People who holds capital, or cash more likely lose less purchase power than people who rely on selling it's man-hour for wages. 

When wages losses purchase power faster than capital holders, this will lead to the 'wage-price spiral', and hence inflation never stops.

the maths is simple.

take NZ for example, the current CPI is 6.7%, and one year term deposit is 5.8%. 

for cash holders, they can have a term deposit of 5.8% per year, 5.8%-6.7%= -0.9%, so it loses 0.9% in purchase power.

at the same time, the Labour Cost Index only rose 4.3%, so 4.3%-6.7%=-2.4%, this means the wage earners lost 2.4% purchase power.

this just saying the inflation hurts wage earners much more than businesses.  the real evil is in the profit margins in the business.  Businesses need to reduce profits margins if we want to inflation under control. 

 

so the right term should be 'profit-price' spiral. 

 

Up
3

For sanity - would it be better to use the 1yr TD rates from June 2022, or an aggregate rate across the year? Otherwise interesting point.

Up
0

For there to be a sufficient squeeze on business margins, either competition rises from here or demand falls.

I believe the creamiest margins are enjoyed by players in our core sectors (supermarkets, telecom, banks, food processing, utilities, etc.), meaning demand won't reduce by much and neither major party has any real intention to introduce more competition into these markets.

Up
1

I think it will be a long recession. Perhaps a lost half-decade. 

Up
3