by

The Italian bank crisis – the one graph version | The Market Monetarist

I love Lars Christensen’s work. Simple but elegant. This is a bit wonkish for an investment blog but he makes a very important point which applies to far more than just Italy.

Today I was interviewed by a Danish journalist about the Italian banking crisis….. He asked me a very good question that I think is highly relevant for understanding not only the Italian banking crisis, but the Great Recession in general.

The question was: “Lars, why is there an Italian banking crisis – after all they did NOT have a property markets bubble?”

That – my regular readers will realise – made me very happy because I could answer that the crisis had little to do with what happened before 2008 and rather was about monetary policy failure and in the case of the euro zone also why it is not an optimal currency area.

Said, in another way I repeated my view that the Italian banking crisis essentially is a consequence of too weak nominal GDP growth in Italy. As a consequence of Italy’s structural problems the country should have a significantly weaker “lira”, but given the fact that Italy is in the euro area the country instead gets far too tight monetary conditions and consequently since 2008 nominal GDP has fallen massively below the pre-crisis trend.

That is the cause of the sharp rise in non-performing loans and bad debt since 2008. The graph below clearly illustrates that.

I think it is pretty clear that had nominal GDP growth not fallen this sharply since 2008 then we wouldn’t be talking about an Italian banking crisis today. There was no Italian “bubble” prior to 2008 and there are no signs that Italian banks have been particularly irresponsible, but even the most conservative banks will get into trouble when nominal GDP drops 25% below the pre-crisis trend.

Market monetarists advocate that central banks should maintain smooth monetary growth consistent with a nominal GDP target. Current central bank response is lagged because they have to wait for inflation and employment numbers — which is about as effective as driving your car down the highway while looking in the rear view mirror to see where you are headed. Even then, they focus on the wrong numbers, inflation and employment, when the root cause is monetary growth and nominal GDP.

Source: The Italian bank crisis – the one graph version | The Market Monetarist

by

Ever heard of Aram Khachaturian?

You may not recognize the name of this great Armenian composer but you may recognize his music.

 


This beautiful piece of music is perhaps most famous for its incredibly evocative use in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It was also heavily borrowed from by James Horner for his soundtrack to Aliens.

by

Alex White on BREXIT

Alex White, Head of Country Analysis at The Economist Intelligence Unit: “We see an EEA- deal as highly likely…..we are reasonably optimistic about the breakup.”

by

Michael Pettis: Brexit could speed breakup of the Euro

On secular stagnation: “I don’t see growth picking up until you either redistribute income downwards — which is politically quite difficult and slow — or developed countries which are credible borrowers engage in massive infrastructure spending — which would be a great idea but politically difficult — so I’m afraid secular stagnation is going to last several more years.”

On BREXIT: “I’m not to optimistic that the Euro will be around in 10 years…BREXIT could speed up the process if England does well.”

On future crises: “It’s always the same thing: a huge switch from New York to Washington (in American terms) where policy begins to dominate the whole process…because the solutions to the problems are political solutions, not really economic or financial solutions…”

by

Steve Keen: Australian mortgage debt levels are “outrageous”

Steve Keen has a number of detractors who knock him for his incorrect forecast of collapse of the Australian housing bubble. But he was wrong for the right reasons…. the Australian financial system, based on highly-levered mortgages, is a house of cards. It was only rescued post-GFC by massive stimulus in China, resulting in a mini-boom in the Australian Resources industry.

Steve is at the cutting edge of economic theory. He and Richard Koo (The Holy Grail of Macroecomomics) were at the forefront of identifying the role that debt plays in the Aggregate Demand equation. We should take heed of his warnings.

“Our models predicted it [the GFC] couldn’t happen. It did happen. We therefore shouldn’t trust our models.”

“…What drives house prices is acceleration in mortgage debt…..Australians avoided collapse of the bubble by continuing to lend but mortgage debt is now 1.1 times GDP which is outrageous.”

by

Jim Jefferies – Gun Control | from BARE Netflix Special

Highly relevant in today’s political climate.

Turn the sound off if bad language offends you😉

by

Major banks’ credit rating outlook cut to ‘negative’

From Clancy Yeates:

Australia’s banks face the threat of higher funding costs, after Standard & Poor’s downgraded the big four’s credit rating outlook to “negative”, a direct result of its action on the government’s top-notch rating.

….the banks’ credit ratings are automatically raised by two notches because S&P assumes they would receive government support in times of financial stress. Action on the government’s rating therefore tends to flow directly into the banks’ ratings.

“The negative outlooks on these banks reflect our view that the ratings benefit from government support and that we would expect to downgrade these entities if we lower the long-term local currency sovereign credit rating on Australia,” Standard & Poor’s said.

While the warning does not reflect changes in the banks’ financial performance, analysts say that if it leads to a downgrade in the actual credit rating of banks, it could push up bank funding costs all the same.

….”While Australian banks enjoy relatively high credit ratings and are deemed to be in the top quartile of global capital requirements, the frequent use of offshore wholesale funding markets is likely to result in higher funding costs.”

The big four raise about 30 per cent of their funding by issuing bonds in wholesale funding markets, so the cost of this debt can have a significant influence on the sector…..

To avoid moral hazard, with banks taking unnecessary risk at the taxpayer’s expense — a case of heads I win, tails you lose — Treasury and the RBA should commit themselves to the Swedish example. Banks that require rescue should forfeit control of their assets by issue of a controlling equity stake to the government. That would significantly curtail management and shareholders’ willingness to take unnecessary risks. And create a strong incentive to increase capital buffers. Not just to comply with APRA rules, but to make their businesses as bullet-proof as possible. Conservatively-run banks would be a major asset to the economy.

What APRA needs to focus on is instilling the right culture in banks. Rather than management focused on incentives to grow the business, there should be more emphasis on protecting the business and ensuring its long-term survival.

Source: Major banks’ credit rating outlook cut to ‘negative’

by

ASX 200: Banks weigh on the index

The ASX 200 encountered resistance at 5300 and is likely to test support at 4900/5000, with breach of the lower trend channel and declining 13-week Money Flow warning of selling pressure. Breach of support at the recent low of 5050 would confirm.

ASX 200

The Banks are weighing on the index, with APRA warning of further capital increases and concerns over a slowing housing market, particularly apartments. The ASX 300 Banks Index is testing primary support at 7200. Breach would offer a target of 6400*. Weakness in this sector is likely to affect the entire market.

ASX 300 Banks

* Target calculation: 7200 – ( 8000 – 7200 ) = 6400

by

S&P 500: Expect strong resistance

The S&P 500 is testing resistance at 2100, while declining 13-week Twiggs Money Flow warns of medium-term selling pressure. Expect strong resistance between 2100 and 2130 but reversal below 2000 is now unlikely.

S&P 500 Index

CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) at 15 indicates calm is restored after the last two turbulent weeks.

S&P 500 VIX

by

Gold surges as the Pound and Yuan fall

The Yuan is sliding against the Dollar, with USDCNY breaking through resistance at 6.60. Expect further capital flight, both from residents and offshore investors. Borrowers will also seek to repay Dollar-denominated loans and replace them with facilities in the local currency, adding further pressure on the Yuan.

USDCNY

The PBOC has been encouraged by fading prospects of further rate rises from the Fed, with 10-year Treasury Yields falling to a new all-time low of 1.37 percent, compared to 1.40 percent in 2012.

10-Year Treasury Yields

….And the Pound falling to a 30-year low.

GBPUSD

Falling currencies and lower long-term interest rates are both good news for gold bugs, with spot gold surging to $1370/ounce. Expect retracement to test the new support level at $1300/ounce. Respect of the band of support at $1280/$1300 is likely and would signal another advance, with a target of $1400/ounce*.

Spot Gold

* Target calculation: 1300 + ( 1300 – 1200 ) = 1400

by

How Hanson should frame the immigration debate | MacroBusiness

From Leith van Onselen:

Senator-elect One Nation’s Pauline Hanson dominated news headlines yesterday after she warned of “terrorism on our streets” and suburbs “swamped by Asians”, prompting righteous indignation from all manner of MSM commentators.

The below extract from The Canberra Times captures some of the shenanigans: At a fiery press conference in Brisbane on Monday, Ms Hanson claimed the major parties should respect the large number of votes One Nation pulled, and urged a return to an Australia “where we as a nation had a right to have an opinion and have a say”…… “We are a Christian country and that’s what I’m saying … [former Liberal prime minister] John Howard said we have a right to say who comes into our country and I’m saying exactly the same.”

My simple advice to Ms Hanson is that if she wants to be taken seriously in the immigration debate, then she must dump the racial overture and instead focus on the level of immigration and why it is too high.

The fact that many of us in major cities are stuck in traffic, cannot get a seat on the train, are experiencing crowded hospitals and schools, and cannot afford a home has little to do with race, but rather a high immigration intake that has overwhelmed our cities’ ability to cope with the influx.

….Ms Hanson should also highlight that the system surrounding so-called skilled and student visas has been corrupted, with widespread rorting and fraud revealed by the recent joint ABC-Fairfax investigation (see Australia’s hidden people smuggling scandal). Again, rather than focusing on race, Ms Hanson should argue to restore integrity to Australia’s visa system so that it is not overtaken by “crooks and criminals”.

…More broadly, Ms Hanson should highlight that for a major commodity exporter like Australia, which pays its way in the world by selling-off its fixed endowment of resources, ongoing high immigration can be self-defeating from an economic standpoint. That is, continually adding more people to the population year after year means less resources per capita. It also means that Australia must sell-off its fixed assets quicker just to maintain a constant standard of living (other things equal).

Again, none of this has anything to do with race – i.e. where the migrants come from – but rather that the overall immigration intake is too high and has overwhelmed the capacity of the economy and infrastructure to absorb them, eroding individuals’ living standards in the process.

There has also been no proper debate within the community about the appropriate level of immigration and no political mandate for pursuing a “Big Australia”.

…..We should not forget that an Essential Research opinion poll published in May revealed that the overwhelming majority of Australians (59%) believed “the level of immigration into Australia over the last ten years has been too high”, more than double the 28% of Australians that disagreed with that statement.

….under current policy, Australia is on track to double its population by 2050 to more than 40 million people – something most Australians oppose. Again, this comes amid virtually no discussion nor mandate for this dramatic change, nor any plan on how to cope with this growth.

As long as Ms Hanson plays the “race card”, she will be rightly ridiculed and has already lost the debate. Population policy is far too important an issue to be segregated into pro- and anti-immigration corners based upon views about race and cultural supremacy. Instead, the issue needs to be debated rationally and based upon whether or not immigration is benefiting the living standards of the existing population.

I agree. This has nothing to do with race or religion. Pauline Hanson is barking up the wrong tree. This is about numbers. I suspect the same is true of the Brexit vote. I am all in favor of skilled migration (being a migrant myself) but any newcomer should ask themselves how they can contribute to existing Australian values and culture….rather than preserve their own.

Source: How Hanson should frame the immigration debate – MacroBusiness

by

Don’t blame demographics, blame the government

Niels Jensen’s Absolute Return monthly newsletter raises one of the major structural impediments to growth in Europe:

As [economist Woody Brock] pointed out when in London, ageing has only had a modest impact on GDP growth and inflation so far. Governments have ruined economic growth in Europe; demographics haven’t. If employment laws are such that employment is virtually for life, companies stop hiring. If you can’t fire, you don’t hire, as Woody pointed out….

Similar impediments are evident in Australia. If developed economies want to compete in global markets, they need to get their house in order. Raising barriers to free trade is not a sustainable alternative but will instead destroy any remaining semblance of competitiveness. Trade barriers result in a limited choice of products, forcing customers to pay higher prices and accept inferior quality. Lack of competition leads to the death of innovation. Quality deteriorates and we soon face another zombie industry dependent on government support. A prime example would be the motor industry — in Europe, North America, even Australia — over the last half-century.

by

More capital ‘likely’ for banks: APRA

From Clancy Yeates:

APRA on Monday updated a study that showed the common equity tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of Australia’s major banks were now in the top quartile of banks internationally – a key target set by the 2014 financial system inquiry……APRA said the banks’ average CET1 ratios were 13.5 per cent of assets at December 2015, up from 11.7 per cent in June 2014.

The comparisons are significant because the 2014 financial system inquiry (FSI), chaired by former Commonwealth Bank chief executive David Murray, said that in order to be “unquestionably strong”, the banks’ capital position should be among the top quartile globally.”

….Echoing previous comments from APRA chairman Wayne Byres that capital requirements would rise “somewhat higher”, APRA said global banking regulators were likely to settle on rules later this year that would ratchet up how much capital banks must set aside. This will probably affect Australian lenders, too.

….It said the final shape of these rules would not be known until late this year, and it would be “prudent” for banks to plan for “the likelihood of strengthened capital requirements in some areas”.

While increased capital requirements may reduce bank profitability and slow lending growth in the medium-term, an increased capital buffer is critical for long-term sustainability of the industry and the broader economy. The pay-off banks should see is lower risk premiums for both deposit and liability funding, more stable growth and higher equity valuations.

Source: More capital ‘likely’ for banks: APRA

by

Why Brexit Is Good For Iron Ore, China | Hellenic Shipping News

Brexit gives a further reason to buy Asian and emerging markets stocks, according to CLSA‘s chief equity strategist Christopher Wood. Wood raised emerging markets to Overweight this morning.

First, Brexit is good for commodities such as iron ore and steel, thereby boosting Asia’s material stocks. This is because a …..cheaper pound and euro that resulted from Britain leaving the European Union, provides an excuse for more monetary and fiscal easing. “Infrastructure stimulus in the G7 world should give some sort of bid to the commodity complex on a global basis,” wrote Wood.

Indeed, commodity traders in China agree. Iron ore futures jumped 5.2% this morning, hard-rolled coil (steel) soared 4.5%…..

Second, Brexit relieves pressure on the People’s Bank of China, which is trying to liberalize its exchange rate while keeping capital outflow under control. The deep slump in the British pound gives the PBoC another excuse to guide its yuan fix lower.

Indeed, the PBoC’s yuan-dollar fix is at a 6-year low this morning, even though the pound still tumbled 8.7% against the yuan in onshore trading.

Third, Wood raised emerging markets to Overweight “given the increased negative outlook on European equities, given the political uncertainties raised by Brexit and given the negative consequences of even more negative interest rates and more negative bond yields for European banks.”

Wood continues to see gold price soaring …..G7 central bankers are crazy, in Wood’s view.

Source: Barron’s

Source: Why Brexit Is Good For Iron Ore, China, Emerging Markets | Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide

by

Gold rises as the Yuan and interest rates fall

China seems to have given up on its policy of supporting the Yuan against the Dollar, with USDCNY breaking through resistance at 6.60. Depleting foreign reserves to support the Dollar-peg was always going to be a tough call for the PBOC. But the alternative of increased capital flight and rising counter-measures from trading partners may exact an even higher price.

USDCNY

Perhaps the PBOC was encouraged by fading prospects of further rate rises from the Fed this year, after BREXIT. 10-Year Treasury Yields are headed for a test of support at the all-time low of 1.40 percent in 2012.

10-Year Treasury Yields

Gold broke resistance at $1300/ounce and is now retracing to test the new support level. BREXIT, a weakening Yuan, and lower interest rates are all likely to fuel demand for gold. Respect of the band of support at $1280/$1300 is likely and would signal another advance, with a target of $1400/ounce*.

Spot Gold

* Target calculation: 1300 + ( 1300 – 1200 ) = 1400

by

Brexit: An Indictment of Direct Democracy or Vulgar Politics as Usual? | The Diplomat

By Ankit Panda:

Consider Boris Johnson, the man who appears best positioned to emerge as the UK’s next prime minister. In becoming the public face of the Brexit campaign in defiance of fellow Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, Boris seized on the opportunity he saw in the aftermath of the Cameron government’s own politically cynical ploy to hold a non-binding referendum on EU membership…. Boris, heeding Machiavelli’s warning that “there is nothing more important than appearing to be religious,” took on the role of the high priest of Tory euroskeptics in favor of leaving the European Union.

….Direct democracy by mean of referendum, in the context of Brexit, was a tool evoked of political necessity (Cameron seeking temporary political ballast) and taken advantage of for political ambition (Boris’ skewering of Cameron). That the people of the UK voted and told us what they really think is ultimately a neutral event, on balance.

…..The takeaway from ‘Brexit’, thus, shouldn’t be a hardening of contempt for popular will and the one-person-one-vote principle that underwrites all forms of modern democracy, but to continue to expect politicians to be politicians.

I’ll leave it to Boris Johnson to prove me right.

Source: Brexit: An Indictment of Direct Democracy or Vulgar Politics as Usual? | The Diplomat

by

Culturally Constructed Ignorance Wins the Day | Bloomberg View

Barry Ritholz ascribes the BREXIT vote to “culturally constructed ignorance”:

….there is a disconcerting trend that has gained strength: agnotology. It’s a term worth knowing, since it is going global. The word was coined by Stanford University professor Robert N. Proctor, who described it as “culturally constructed ignorance, created by special interest groups to create confusion and suppress the truth in a societally important issue.” It is especially useful to sow seeds of doubt in complex scientific issues by publicizing inaccurate or misleading data. Culturally constructed ignorance played a major role in the Brexit vote, as we shall see after a bit of explanation.

….Current agnotology campaigns seem to be having similarly desired effects. We see the results in a variety of public-policy issues where one side has manufactured enough doubt through false statements, inflammatory rhetoric and data from dubious sources that they can mislead public opinion in a significant way, at least for a time.

….In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, there is evidence that people didn’t fully understand what they were voting for. Some didn’t think their protest vote would matter, or misunderstood what they were voting for, or what the EU actually was. There seems to be a rise in voters’ remorse the days after. Many blamed the tabloids in the U.K.. The misstatements and myths which were being pressed by the leave campaign about the EU were so rampant and absurd that the European Commission had to put out repeated corrections and maintain a blog to rebut the nonsense.

While I am as concerned as Barry over the dumbing down of political debate, ably assisted by the tabloid press and the Internet, where “false statements, inflammatory rhetoric and data from dubious sources” are used to inflame the public, this is nothing new. That is politics. When emotions are aroused, the intellect is dormant.

But we should guard against the arrogance of presuming that voters are misinformed. Perhaps it is us, as George Friedman points out, who are aloof from issues on the street:

Immigration is socially destabilizing. There is always friction between older residents and immigrants…..But, better educated and wealthier individuals normally don’t experience this…

….the British who were for it, to a large extent, did not feel the profound social costs of immigration. That fee was going to be paid by those who—again with many exceptions—voted for leaving.

Source: Culturally Constructed Ignorance Wins the Day – Bloomberg View

by

Is Brexit the End of the EU? | Mauldin Economics

Excellent analysis from George Friedman:

As troubling as Europe’s economy is, it was not the prime mover in the referendum. The contentious immigration debate holds that honor. And immigration itself was not really the issue. Britain was quite comfortable with immigrants until Brussels began making demands.

The EU dictating the rules was the problem. It was a question of sovereignty. That the EU could make decisions that would change the character of Britain was not okay.

Granted, there was a large vote for staying. The British media have been eager to point out that those who voted to leave were less educated, had lower incomes, and so on. They were also most likely to be affected by immigration.

Immigration is socially destabilizing. There is always friction between older residents and immigrants…..But, better educated and wealthier individuals normally don’t experience this element of immigration. The tension on the streets rarely enters the halls of academia, senior civil service, or banking.

Not surprisingly, the question of sovereignty wasn’t critical to this class. Just as large-scale immigration did not concern them.

….In Britain, the immigrant issue was critical and created a sense of powerlessness. First, Britain was not in control of its immigration policy. Second, the British who were for it, to a large extent, did not feel the profound social costs of immigration.

That fee was going to be paid by those who—again with many exceptions—voted for leaving. So it was a revolt against the British establishment and the EU. As with most things, it was much more complex than it seemed.

When All Else Fails, Acknowledge the Obvious
The EU has already responded. This statement from the foreign ministers of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, defines the future:
We will continue in our efforts to work for a stronger and more cohesive European Union of 27 based on common values and the rule of law. It is to that end that we shall also recognize different levels of ambition amongst Member States when it comes to the project of European integration. While not stepping back from what we have achieved, we have to find better ways of dealing with these different levels of ambition so as to ensure that Europe delivers better on the expectation of all European states…. However, we are aware that discontent with the functioning of the EU as it is today is manifest in parts of societies. We take this very seriously and are determined to make the EU work better for all our citizens.

This was the EU’s answer to Brexit. They recognized that not everyone wants the same level of integration and will respect that. They are aware that many are discontent with the EU.

In other words, after the British vote, they acknowledge the obvious. This is a unique evolution. It is not clear what they are going to do, but they are not going to punish Britain. They can’t afford to.

Source: Is Brexit the End of the EU? | This Week in Geopolitics Investment Newsletter | Mauldin Economics