Posts filed under “Think Tank”
This week’s Outside the box looks at some very interesting research done by two economic historians, Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley and Kevin O’Rourke of Trinity College, Dublin They give us comparisons between the Great Depression and today’s downturn. They continue to update their data from time to time, the link to their work is at http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/3421. I have not previously heard of www.voxeu.org, but it is a collection of the work of well regarded international economists that seems quite interesting for those who enjoy readings in the dismal science.
This week’s OTB will print long, but it is primarily charts. Please note that I have re-arranged some of the new charts to cut down on space because of some duplications. Word count is not all that much and it reads well. I will be referring to their work in future letters as well. Have a great week!
John Mauldin, Editor
Outside the Box
A Tale of Two Depressions
- World industrial production continues to track closely the 1930s fall, with no clear signs of ‘green shoots’.
- World stock markets have rebounded a bit since March, and world trade has stabilized, but these are still following paths far below the ones they followed in the Great Depression.
- There are new charts for individual nations’ industrial output. The big-4 EU nations divide north-south; today’s German and British industrial output are closely tracking their rate of fall in the 1930s, while Italy and France are doing much worse.
- The North Americans (US & Canada) continue to see their industrial output fall approximately in line with what happened in the 1929 crisis, with no clear signs of a turn around.
- Japan’s industrial output in February was 25 percentage points lower than at the equivalent stage in the Great Depression. There was however a sharp rebound in March.
The parallels between the Great Depression of the 1930s and our current Great Recession have been widely remarked upon. Paul Krugman has compared the fall in US industrial production from its mid-1929 and late-2007 peaks, showing that it has been milder this time. On this basis he refers to the current situation, with characteristic black humour, as only “half a Great Depression.” The “Four Bad Bears” graph comparing the Dow in 1929-30 and S&P 500 in 2008-9 has similarly had wide circulation (Short 2009). It shows the US stock market since late 2007 falling just about as fast as in 1929-30.
Comparing the Great Depression to now for the world, not just the US
This and most other commentary contrasting the two episodes compares America then and now. This, however, is a misleading picture. The Great Depression was a global phenomenon. Even if it originated, in some sense, in the US, it was transmitted internationally by trade flows, capital flows and commodity prices. That said, different countries were affected differently. The US is not representative of their experiences. Our Great Recession is every bit as global, earlier hopes for decoupling in Asia and Europe notwithstanding. Increasingly there is awareness that events have taken an even uglier turn outside the US, with even larger falls in manufacturing production, exports and equity prices. In fact, when we look globally, as in Figure 1, the decline in industrial production in the last nine months has been at least as severe as in the nine months following the 1929 peak. (All graphs in this column track behaviour after the peaks in world industrial production, which occurred in June 1929 and April 2008.) Here, then, is a first illustration of how the global picture provides a very different and, indeed, more disturbing perspective than the US case considered by Krugman, which as noted earlier shows a smaller decline in manufacturing production now than then.
Updated Figure 1. World Industrial Output, Now vs Then (updated)
Source: Eichengreen and O’Rourke (2009) and IMF.
Category: Think Tank
Oh to be a fly on the wall over the next two days listening to the FOMC discuss the current state of the economy, their programs in place to help jump start it and what their game plan is looking forward. But, whatever comes out of it tomorrow, keep one thing in mind. The Fed…Read More
Good Evening: U.S. stocks today suffered their broadest and deepest retreat since the March lows. That this weakness in equities was confirmed by the action in other parts of the capital markets and was accompanied by rising volume and volatility levels may mean that a correction of the March-June rally is now under way. A…Read More
Patricia White, Associate Director, Division of Research and Statistics
Before the Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment, Committee of Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
June 22, 2009
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Bunning, and other members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to provide the Federal Reserve Board’s views on the development of a new regulatory structure for the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives market. The Board brings to this policy debate both its interest in ensuring financial stability and its role as a supervisor of banking institutions. Today, I will describe the broad objectives that the Board believes should guide policymakers as they devise the new structure and identify key elements that will support those objectives. Supervision of derivative dealers is a fundamental element of the oversight of OTC derivative markets, and I also will discuss the steps necessary to ensure these firms employ adequate risk management.
Mitigation of Systemic Risk
The events of the last two years have demonstrated the potential for difficulties in one part of the financial system to create problems in other sectors and in the macroeconomy more broadly. OTC derivatives appear to have amplified or transmitted shocks. An important objective of regulatory initiatives related to OTC derivatives is to ensure that improvements to the infrastructure supporting these products reduce the likelihood of such transmissions and make the financial system as a whole more resilient to future shocks.
Centralized clearing of standardized OTC products is a key component of efforts to mitigate such systemic risk. One method of achieving centralized clearing is to establish central counterparties, or CCPs, for OTC products. Market participants have already established several CCPs to provide clearing services for some OTC interest rate, energy, and credit derivative contracts. Regulators both in the United States and abroad are seeking to speed the development of new CCPs and to broaden the product line of existing CCPs.
While still finishing up almost .03 for the week ended Sunday, AAA said the average price of a gallon of unleaded gasoline fell Sunday for the first time since April 28th, a 53 day streak without a drop. At $2.69, it is up .76 since March 18th, the day the FOMC announced they were going…Read More
After the note I just sent on the Fed, the MBA said that after raising its forecast for mortgage originations by over $800b in March after the Fed’s QE plan and the subsequent decline in interest rates, they are cutting its ’09 est by $700b. 88% of the cut is due to refi’s as the…Read More
Here are my prepared remarks for the Senate Banking Committee later today. The hearing starts at 15:00 in Room 538 DSOB (Dirkson Senate Office Building). Drinks and poetry readings at Kelly’s Irish Times afterward. — Chris
Over-the-Counter Derivatives: Modernizing Oversight to Increase Transparency and Reduce Risks
Statement by Christopher Whalen
Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment
United States Senate
June 22, 2009
Chairman Reed, Senator Bunning, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for requesting my testimony today regarding the operation and regulation of over-the-counter or “OTC” derivatives markets. My name is Christopher Whalen and I live in the State of New York. I work in the financial community as an analyst and a principal of a firm that rates the performance of commercial banks. I previously appeared before the full Committee in March of this year to discuss regulatory reform.
First let me make a couple of points for the Committee on how to think about OTC derivatives. Then I will answer your questions in summary form. Finally, I provide some additional sources and references to help you in your deliberations.
1) Defining OTC Asset Classes:
When you think about OTC derivatives, you must include both conventional interest rate and currency swap contracts, single name credit default swap or “CDS” contracts, and the panoply of specialized, customized gaming contracts for everything and anything else that can be described, from the weather to sports events to shifting specific types of risk exposure from one unit of AIG to another. You must also include the family of complex structured financial instruments such as mortgage securitizations and collateralized debt obligations or “CDOs,” for these too are OTC “derivatives” that purport to derive their “value” from another asset or instrument.
With the crowded reflation trade showing signs of fatigue, notwithstanding the highest close in Chinese stocks today since July, the FOMC meets for a 2 day meeting and their commentary on the QE side of their monetary policy will either reignite it or further its rest. Will the FOMC follow thru with their existing programs…Read More
Caution last week crept back into investors’ vocabulary for the first time in more than three months as they faced up to President Barack Obama’s plan to reform the US financial market regulations, weighed the prospects of a global economic recovery and whether the “green shoots” needed more monetary water, and also started pondering the second-quarter earnings season.
As risk-taking moderated, profit-taking on equities and commodities set in after a colossal advance since early March. Government bonds rallied further, high-yield corporate bonds met selling pressure, spreads on credit derivative indices widened, and the US dollar marked time. “We could be seeing one of those occasional ‘all-change signals’ in short-term trends,” said Fullermoney editor David Fuller from across the pond.
From his new abode at Gluskin Sheff & Associates, David Rosenberg said: “Post-credit collapse and asset deflation cycles are always gripped with fragility; the intermittent beta trades and flashy rallies only serve to tell us that nothing moves in a straight line. In the meantime, the incoming data do suggest that recession pressures are subsiding, but it is difficult to see what the sources of recovery are going to be outside of government spending.”
Source: Gary Varvel
The week’s performance of the major asset classes is summarized by the chart below. Not shown, the entire precious metals complex was again out of favor with investors, with gold bullion’s (-0.5%) high-beta cousins – platinum (-3.7%) and silver (-4.1%) – being sold off by cautious investors.
The US dollar ended the week virtually unchanged after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told a regional summit on Tuesday that new reserve currencies, in addition to the dollar, were needed to stabilize the global financial situation. Meanwhile Brazil, Russia, India and China went on the biggest dollar-buying binge in eight months during May, adding $60 billion to their reserves, as cited by MoneyNews (via Bloomberg).
Many stock markets on Monday registered their worst single-session losses in a month. Mature markets perked up towards the end of the week, but emerging markets, in a number of instances, were down for all five trading days. After a four-week winning streak, the MSCI World Index (-3.0%) and the MSCI Emerging Markets Index (-5.0%) closed the week at their lowest levels since the last week of May.
Facing lackluster volume, the major US indices all ended the week in the red, but less so than most European and emerging bourses, as seen from the movements of the indices: S&P 500 Index (-2.6%, YTD +2.0%), Dow Jones Industrial Index (-2.9%, YTD -2.7%), Nasdaq Composite Index (-1.7%, YTD +15.9%) and Russell 2000 Index (-2.7%, YTD +2.7%).
To put the decline in context, the biggest pullback in the S&P 500 since the March 9 low happened in late March when the Index dropped by 5.9% over the course of two days. The most recent decline took the Index down by 5.0% between May 8-15. The S&P 500 is currently a more modest 2.7% off its high of June 12.
After climbing into the black for the year to date in the prior week, the Dow fell back to -2.7% last week – the only major US index in the red for 2009 – and, along with the FTSE 100 Index (-2.0%), one of the few global indices in this unenviable position.
Click here or on the table below for a larger image.
As far as non-US markets are concerned, returns ranged from top performers – mostly African countries – Sri Lanka (+10.7%), Kenya (+9.5%), Namibia (+8.5%), Uganda (+7.3) and Côte d’Ivoire (+5.0%), to Russia (-9.8%), Qatar (-9.8%), Argentina (-8.4%), Ukraine (-6.9%) and Finland (-6.8%), which experienced headwinds.
In a bullish move, the Shanghai Composite Index – one of the leading markets in the advance over the last few months – bucked the downtrend with a gain of 5.0%. However, the Russian Trading System Index – the top-performer for the year to date (+70.7%) and since the November 20 lows (+104.8%), succumbed to profit-taking, losing 9.8% on the week. Also, the Bombay Sensex 30 Index (-4.7%) declined after rising for 14 consecutive weeks. (Click here to access a complete list of global stock market movements, as supplied by Emerginvest.)
Category: Think Tank
I have often written that the four most dangerous words in the investment world are “This Time It’s Different.” If memory serves me, I have written several e-letters disparaging various personages who have uttered those very words, and gone one to confirm later that it wasn’t different. It almost never is. And yet – and yet! – I am going to make the case over the next few weeks that it really is different this time, with only a lonely asterisk as a caveat. What prompts my probable foolishness to tempt the investing gods is the rather large amount of bad analysis based on unreasonable (dare I say lazy or surface?) readings of statistics that is coming from the mainstream investment media and investment types with their built-in bias for bullish analysis. Normally, gentle reader, your humble analyst is a paragon of moderate sensibilities, but I have been pushed over a mental edge and need to restore balance. I anticipate that this topic will take several weeks, as trying to cover it all in one sitting would exhaust us both. It should be fun. But first…
Peter Bernstein, R.I.P.
Sadly, Peter Bernstein passed away at 90 years young on June 5. One of the great honors and privileges of my life has been getting to know Peter and his lovely wife, Barbara. Introduced at a small dinner five years ago, I have been privileged to share many dinners and meetings with him in the years since, soaking up his wisdom. Only a month ago, he made a presentation (by satellite) to Rob Arnott’s annual conference and was at the top of his intellectual game. His writing of late has been some of his best. Peter cofounded the Journal of Portfolio Management and truly was the dean of investment analysts.
He wrote 10 books (five after the age of 75!). I am often asked what books I would recommend for insight into the economic world. At the very top of my list has always been Against the Gods: the Remarkable Story of Risk. If you have not read it, then get it and put it on top of your summer list. Capital Ideas is also brilliant. The Power of Gold is a must-read. You can get all three in a set at Amazon.
Jason Zweig wrote a very moving obituary in the Journal and reminded me of a few quotes I’ve heard from Peter. “‘What we like to consider as our wealth has a far more evanescent and transitory character than most of us are ready to admit.’ He urged investors to regard their gains as a kind of loan that the lender – the financial market – could yank back at any time without any notice.
“Asked in 2004 to name the most important lesson he had to unlearn, he said, ‘That I knew what the future held, that you can figure this thing out. I’ve become increasingly humble about it over time and comfortable with that. You have to understand that being wrong is part of the investment process.’”
Peter and I chatted several times during the last year, and he continued to tell me that those who thought we were in for a typical recovery were probably going to be wrong. In private conversations he was very worried about the world, and added much wisdom to those of us privileged to sit at his feet.
Isaac Newton once said, “If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.” In the world of investment wisdom, there is no shoulder higher than that of Peter Bernstein. Rest in gentle peace, my friend. You will be greatly missed.
This Time It’s Different*
Ben Bernanke’s career will be analyzed and written about for many years. But the one thing that has caused me the most pain is his bringing of the term “green shoots” into the investment lexicon. These may be the two most overused and annoying words of my investment career. Every possible sign of a recovery is anointed with the phrase.
Of late, there has been a tendency for analysts to see numbers or statistics that are “less bad” and interpret them as signs that we are in recovery or at least almost there. They glance back at previous recoveries and say, “Doesn’t this look like the last time? When such and such happens it means that recovery is on the way. We should therefore buy stocks” (or whatever).
That we are condemned to read such musings is part of the investment landscape. But that does not mean we shouldn’t take the time to look at what the writer of those words is actually looking at. All too often of late, I find these people grasping at straws or failing to understand the data.
My premise for uttering the heresy “This Time It’s Different*” is that the fundamental nature of the economic landscape has so changed that comparisons with post-WWII recoveries is at best problematical and at worst misleading.
Category: Think Tank