By Gareth Vaughan
A sea change in thinking and behaviour is required from both central banks and the banks they regulate if the world's to overcome the dual problems of too much debt and too little economic growth, says Andreas Dombret, a member of the executive board of the Deutsche Bundesbank.
In a speech to a Harvard Law School Symposium in New York, Dombret noted the world economy is stricken by two illnesses simultaneously.
"The first is the result of the excessive lifestyle it led before the (global financial) crisis. I’m referring to the overblown financial system and the extreme leveraging, which created a lasting liability in the shape of mountains of debt. It was this excessive leveraging which paved the way to the financial crisis. During the crisis itself, it was plain to see that leverage levels needed to be lowered, especially in the financial sector. But precious little headway has been made in this regard, leaving us with an unstable financial system," Dombret said.
"The second ailment is that global economic growth has been stubbornly stagnant over the past seven years. Most policy responses to the crisis have sought to put output levels and growth back on track. Yet growth has been stuck in the doldrums in most advanced countries."
He pointed out that finance-led growth emerged as the dominant political strategy in the 1980s, meaning financial deregulation was high on the agenda to foster financial development with monetary policy used to counter financial turmoil. Ultimately, however, the period from the 1980s to 2007 saw monetary expansion push up liquidity levels facilitating balance sheet expansion and excessive risk taking, said Dombret.
"Given this experience, a doctor treating a patient with these symptoms would stop prescribing painkillers. But as it turned out, the monetary 'medication' actually started to be expanded in 2008. First via ultra-low interest rates, then through quantitative easing, followed, more recently, by even more monetary measures aimed at kick-starting inflation and the economy."
"The liquidity provided stabilised the financial system, but it also inflated asset prices. The aftermath of the expansionary monetary policymaking before the crisis should serve as a reminder not to make the same mistake twice. Providing an endless flow of liquidity as a kind of painkiller does nothing to tackle the root cause of the economic challenges we are facing," Dombret added.
"The second painkiller frequently administered to support financial development in the pre-crisis era was deregulation and a 'light touch' in regulation and supervision. The idea behind this approach was that lenience would fuel increased investment. Unfortunately, it inflated the credit bubble."
Dombret argues "solid regulation and responsible supervision" are the keys to limiting future bubbles.
'Financial intermediation can do more harm than good'
"Yes, we’ve already achieved a great deal since the crisis - Basel III and TLAC (total loss absorbing capacity) at the global level; Dodd-Frank in the US; the banking union in the euro area. And some are saying we’ve already gone too far. The evidence, however, tells a different story: it is higher standards that strengthen credit intermediation and economic development. That’s something worth remembering in the face of what are, intuitively, compelling claims about capital costs. These claims have been discredited by the experience gained during the crisis and by empirical evidence," said Dombret.
"In sum, these policies did not constitute a sustainable lifestyle, nor did they deliver a systematic cure. Rather, they turned out to be painkillers. So the big question I’m asking myself is this: should we carry on treating the symptoms by taking more and more painkillers - or should we look for a fundamental change of lifestyle that might cure the underlying problems?"
Although financial intermediation is important, if it's not regulated, or is insufficiently regulated, it can do more harm than good, he added. This should be kept in mind in every decision regulators make. Furthermore, banks and investors need to change their behaviour. Banks need to adapt their business models, setting themselves sustainable profit targets that do not undermine ethical behaviour, Dombret said.
"Without a doubt, such financial policies need to be complemented by fundamental economic policy reforms."
Suggesting that over three decades the approach of the more finance the better was pursued, Dombret said: "I won't remind you where all this led. We just need to remember the tremendous costs for banks and for society at large that followed the burst of the last credit bubble."
Things turn pear shaped when private sector debt hits 100% of GDP
Dombret argues that finance starts having a negative impact on output growth when private sector debt reaches 100% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). He points out that most advanced economies far exceeded this level before 2008 and continue to do so.
Dombret's speech was circulated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the central banks' bank. A 2012 BIS working paper made similar arguments about private sector debt's impact on productivity growth. The paper actually cited New Zealand as an example saying: "In the first half of the 1990s, (NZ) private credit was below 90% of GDP. Credit then rose steadily, reaching nearly 150% of GDP by the time of the crisis. This increase created a drag of nearly one half of 1 percentage point on trend productivity growth."
The working paper suggested that keeping debt "well below" 90% of GDP provides the room needed to respond in the event of a severe shock.
The chart below shows NZ's private sector credit reaching 177% of GDP.
'More finance not the solution'
Ultimately, Dombret suggests, more finance is not the solution to current problems. Thus sticking to the simple “more finance, more growth” trajectory is not a sustainable solution.
"That would run the risk of focusing on what is currently our most pressing problem - lifting growth expectations - at the expense of our long-term and fundamental goal of achieving a stable financial system. And by doing that, we would also sacrifice sustainable growth."
Put another way, Dombret suggests most doctors would prescribe a sophisticated course of treatment aimed at a patient’s long-term wellbeing rather than a box of painkillers every week.
"But ask them what exactly they would prescribe, and the result will probably be rather like asking several economists for macroeconomic policy advice. You might end up with more treatment plans than you have doctors - or patients for that matter."
"What we need is less, and better finance - finance that serves the real economy and sustainable development. How do we achieve that? There are several angles to that question, but the ones I would like to emphasise are financial regulation and supervision, and monetary policy," said Dombret.
"As I said earlier, providing a flow of liquidity as a monetary painkiller does nothing to tackle the root causes of the economic challenges we are facing. In the absence of economic progress on the structural front, monetary easing is not the key to a sustainable economy. It does, however, affect financial stability, given that it can fuel bubbles. Therefore, we need to look for an exit strategy. It is important for central banks to think hard about how they intend to achieve an exit as soon as economic conditions make it viable to do so."
"From a more general angle, integrating financial stability considerations into monetary policy while maintaining the primacy of the price stability goal will be a key challenge for the future. I welcome the fact that central banks are moving in that direction," said Dombret.
Banks must either manage their risks adequately, or regulators must force them to do so, and where necessary take disciplinary measures,
"As such it is up to a supervisor to increase an individual institution's capital requirements if need be. At the same time, however, we must be careful that risky activities do not move to unregulated areas."
Ultimately, Dombret argues, policies must set their sights on a long-term solution, or a lasting cure rather than an endless supply of painkillers.
"We should not turn a blind eye to the short-term challenges we face, of course. But what we must do is refrain from solutions that encourage excessive indebtedness. Finance will be an important ingredient in the cure for growth, but it will need to be of a better quality, not a greater quantity," Dombret concludes.
*This article first appeared in our email for paying subscribers early on Friday morning. See here for more details and how to subscribe.
30 Comments
The Bundesbank and BIS seem to have their heads screwed on, while we still do everything we can to serve and obey our Aussie banking overlords in our cargo cult world.
All hail, great and good Australian Banking Corporations, we the faithful promise to borrow more and more in trust that in return you will bestow your beneficience on us so that our houses will rise in price and jobs will be plentiful.
The cure is more debt. Borrowing money to pay interest on debt isn't a problem at all. Create so much debt that our financial system breaks completely. Then arrest all of the bank directors, seize the banks and write off 95% of the debt. Restore credit and bank deposits so the economy can function. If anyone overseas complains then send the SAS to black bag them and make them "disappear".
There would be issues with the rapid shrinking of the finance sector but eliminating all the debt servicing means we could afford to pay them UBI.
A cure or lack of one maybe closer than most would envisage.
Apparently, the Federal regulators believe JPMorgan Chase has a problem with the “location,” “size and positioning” of its liquidity under its current plan. The April 12 letter to JPMorgan Chase addressed that issue as follows:
“JPMC does not have an appropriate model and process for estimating and maintaining sufficient liquidity at, or readily available to, material entities in resolution…JPMC’s liquidity profile is vulnerable to adverse actions by third parties.” Read more
Is NZ banks' foreign wholesale funding dependency a gaping hole in the nation's financial stability fabric?
Of course it is Stephen,
There was a link recently on this site to a Russian paper which says they were starved into submission by the West when foreign funding was cut off. They were forced to allow the breakup of the soviet union, basically they feared their people more than the western powers.
In that article the author commented the intellectual ability of the governance was lacking, one governor got a provincial governance job because he had stopped binge drinking.
Its not like that here though...
Having 63% of their derivative positions in OTC trades is incredible. They have repeated the same mistakes again. I'm not sure how these banks maintain their status as being competent at risk assessment and end up over leveraged.
From my experience there are very few people who understand risk assessment and are correctly trained in it. This is for all sectors, not just banking. They may in fact be applying their risk assessments on the 37% of their positions that are on markets but exclude their dodgy deals in OTC positions.
From my perspective it's obvious that the banking regulations need to be tightened and banks should not be allowed to carry out risk analysis as it risks the global financial system. No lessons were learnt in 2007.
Yeah it's unfortunate. Too big to fail is propaganda, there's nothing that's too big to fail only socialism for the rich.
The risk they haven't assessed is that they may be too big to bail out, and public opinion is turning against bailing out banks. It'll be a depositor bail out in the future.
Ethereum could be the future. Bypass all the B/S.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_LK0t_qaPo
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/04/michael-hudson-pamama-laundering…
All this would have been avoided by letting the banks go to the wall in 2008, thank you Mr Bush. But now the banks are seemingly unable to inflate the debt away the only solution would be credit creation (QE) or monetary destruction, which must make the banks a bit nervous hence the talk of alternative forms of credit. The only proper way forward in my opinion is for the banks to write off the mountain of debt, then they can have as much asprin as they like.
The reason given was if they had our entire banking system would have collapsed leaving 7billion ppl unable to buy food.
The debt the banks have is underwritten by pensions, and depositors? so that would have gone down well.
So I dont think they should have collapsed, but they should have been nationalised.
Neoliberalism: the source of all our problems:
http://gu.com/p/4tbfb/sbl
Deflation:
How could the RBNZ meet its PTA target of 2% inflation?
What would the RB actually need to do?
Should the Govt help in this task?
What penalties or sanctions will be held against the RB for consistently and deliberately failing to meet its explicit targets?
"purpose of this agreement, the policy target shall be to keep future CPI inflation outcomes between 1 per cent and 3 per cent on average over the medium term, with a focus on keeping future average inflation near the 2 per cent target midpoint."
Is 3 or more years considered "medium term"?
What would be considered "long term"? 5 years? 10 years?
Will the RB aim to breach its targets long term as well as medium term?
Why does the NZ Govt state the terms of the PTA?
Is the Govt concerned that the RB cannot or will not meet the PTA?
Why is no NZ journalist investigating this nonperformance?
Is minor inflation more desirable than deflation? If so, why is the RB choosing deflation?
How could the RBNZ meet its PTA target of 2% inflation?
Change the parameters of calculation - the inclusion of certain factors are more relevant to some than others - who gets to choose?
"The Atlanta Fed's sticky-price consumer price index (CPI)—a weighted basket of items that change price relatively slowly—rose 2.0 percent (annualized) in March, following a 2.7 percent increase in February. The 12-month percent change in the index was 2.5 percent." Read more versus
The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.1 percent in March on a seasonally adjusted basis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the last 12 months, the all items index rose 0.9 percent before seasonal adjustment. Read more
As I have noted before central banks are undertaking a redistribution of wealth from one cohort of society to another based upon a redefinition of narrow CPI inflation, for no other reason than flawed ideology.
I think its been demonstrated over the last few weeks the ocr is only indicative of the direction for the banks, and thats not a suprise.
We are borrowing from the banks and the board rates are only indicative as well and all we do is be pleasant, no hard nosed stuff.
Will this affect our goverments shell company philosophy?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-imf-g20-usa-idUSKCN0XD0S3
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.