CFS Monetary Data are Revealing Regarding the Future

Today we release CFS monetary and financial measures for May 2013.
CFS Divisia M4, which is the broadest and most important measure of
money, grew by 4.9% in May 2013 on a year-over-year basis.

CFS monetary data provide particular insights regarding the Federal
Reserve’s supersized balance sheet, policy options, and the future.
For special analysis, please contact LeAnn Yee at lyee@the-cfs.org.

For Monetary and Financial Data Release:
http://www.CenterforFinancialStability.org/amfm/Divisia_May13.pdf

Greece and the IMF Program

The IMF recently released an internal self-critical report on how it constructed the adjustment program for Greece, thus sparking a debate on why the original, 110 billion euro, May 2010, adjustment program with the IMF, the European Commission, and the ECB — the “troika” — went off-track.

The Fund now says that it should have restructured Greece’s debt from the start, but that the ECB was opposed to that idea. As a result, the restructuring was delayed until March 2012. The IMF also says that its assumptions about the depth of the contraction were overly optimistic. Between 2008 and the end of last year, real GDP contracted by about 20 per cent; it will likely contract somewhat further this year.

My own assessment is as follows:

1. The May 2010 adjustment program had 4 main pillars — fiscal consolidation, structural reforms, privatization, and improved tax collection.

2. Only the first pillar was implemented, and that was implemented the wrong way — it placed extensive emphasis on tax increases and not enough emphasis on expenditure cuts. For the first 2 years of the program, essentially nothing was done to fulfill Greece’s agreements with the troika on privatization, tax collection, and structural reforms, except for an overhaul of the pension system.

3. For the first 6 months or so after the May 2010 agreement, fiscal consolidation, based on revenue hikes, took place. At the same time, the Greek Parliament passed a number of measures relating to structural reforms. The financial markets liked what they saw. As a result, 10-year sovereign spreads relative to Germany dropped from 1,000 basis points in May 2010 to 500 basis points in October.

4. But the markets noticed that while Greece was good at passing reform legislation, it was very poor at implementing. Spreads began to rise. Greek banks, which held large amounts of Greek sovereigns, suffered huge losses. What started out as a sovereign crisis, spread to the banking system, creating a second crisis area — the banking system.

5. The depth of the contraction was exacerbated, because the troika underestimated the size of the fiscal multiplier. The troika has recently admitted that it had underestimated the size of the fiscal multiplier in Greece. In January 2012, the Bank of Greece Governor published an article in The Financial Times, in which he stated that the fiscal multiplier had been underestimated.

6. All of this was compounded by politicians who failed to tell people why Greece found itself in a crisis to begin with, and what would be needed to get out of the crisis. Instead, politicians fought amongst themselves. They gave the impression that painful measures were being imposed on Greece by unsympathetic foreigners.

6. To date, there has been very little done in Greece in terms of structural reforms, improving tax collection, and privatization. Recent fiscal consolidation, however, places emphasis on expenditure cuts.

7. The bottom line: the adjustment program went off track because Greece failed to implement. What Greece needs to do is implement its commitments. It appears that the present 3-party coalition is determined to implement its agreements. Consumer confidence in Greece is at a 5-year high.

Assessing Involvement of Central Banks in Financial Stability

Since the financial crisis we have seen an evolving and deepening role for central banks around the world. No longer are central banks responsible for only monetary policy and inflation but they are now tasked with safeguarding the financial system and maintaining financial stability.

Pawel Smaga conducted a comprehensive survey of the 27 European Union central banks and ranked European central banks using a “Financial Stability Engagement index” to measure involvement in fostering financial stability.

The index measures the extent to which a central bank analyzes and promotes financial stability. The most important factors determining its value are a central bank’s actions, decisions taken by the parliament (e.g. formal division of tasks within the safety net), and actions of other safety net institutions in cooperation with the given central bank. The author identifies 10 criteria, which can describe differences in the behavior of central banks toward fulfilling its role of contributing to financial stability.

The ten criteria are in bold and the complementary survey question is beneath it:

1) Does the central bank have a legal financial stability mandate?
Survey: Is the scope of the current mandate sufficient or should it be widened?

2) Does the central bank have a financial stability definition?
Survey: How does the way the definition is constructed determine the scope of financial stability analysis?

3) Does the central bank publish financial stability indicators?
Survey: Are FSIs based on the methodology by IMF or ECB? Are they useful when analyzing financial stability? In what way can they be expanded?

4) Does the central bank publish its own financial stability index?
Survey: Does the central bank have its own financial stability index? Please explain why yes or no and give its brief description. Is it regularly published or for internal purposes only? Does it have a satisfactory forecasting power?

5) Does the central bank carry out and publish its own stress tests results of the banking/financial sector?
Survey: Is stress testing the most effective tool in financial stability analysis?

6) Does the central bank publish reports on financial stability?
Survey: What are the reasons behind (aims of) publishing FSRs? Are they being achieved?

7) Does the central bank act as payment systems overseer?
Survey: In what way does overseeing payment system developments enhance the financial stability analysis?

8) Does the central bank act as a microprudential supervisor of the banking/financial system?
Survey: What are the benefits for financial stability policy of the current engagement in microprudential supervision and whether the central bank would like to see its mandate widened in this respect?

9) Does the central bank act as a macroprudential supervisor?
Survey: Does the macroprudential oversight have to be within central bank objectives? What would be the benefits? How to formulate the macroprudential mandate?

10) Does the central bank have a separate department responsible for analyzing financial stability?
Survey: What is the best organizational solution for financial stability issues?

To read the full study and see the results of the rankings click here.

Comments on Dudley Interview with Bloomberg’s McKee

Bloomberg’s Mike McKee conducted an interesting interview with FRBNY President Bill Dudley.

When asked about concern surrounding the potential for a spike in interest rates, President Dudley offered two points (at about the 8 1/4 minute mark).  I take issue with each.

(1) President Dudley noted that “people are talking about this [a spike in interest rates] all the time.”  Based on his experience, when events are anticipated, “things don’t happen.”

My sense is that this is an overly simplistic view.  Three illustrative examples immediately spring to mind.

NASDAQ:  Although many market participants were “talking about” a correction in tech stocks for months before the collapse beginning in April 2000, this did not “prevent” the Nasdaq from falling by 78%.

ARGENTINA:  The Argentine peso collapse in 2002 was the most telegraphed crisis in the history of recent financial crises.  Although anticipated, the peso plunged by 73% versus the USD and the economy sunk by 16% in real terms.

CARRY TRADE AND BANK OF JAPAN:  In late 2005 and early 2006, market participants were “talking about” the impact of Bank of Japan’s exit from its Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) scheduled for March 2006.  It was widely discussed and anticipated.  Nonetheless, the Nikkei peaked at the end of March 2006 and plunged by 19% into June.  Similarly, the exit from ZIRP triggered a correction in emerging market currencies – despite the fact that everyone was talking about it.

The bottom line is that expectations do not preclude events from occurring.  What could be argued is that when events are anticipated, the potential damage is reduced, since economic agents are forewarned and can protect themselves.  This assumes, however, that the agents know the “correct” response to such signals.

(2) President Dudley noted that the risk of a spike in interest rates is diminished as the Fed holds many of the “long duration assets” on its balance sheet, resulting in less risk for the private sector.

This is false for many reasons – as it both focuses on flows versus stocks and misses the linkage between public and private debt markets.

Many interest rates in the private sector are based on their spread to Treasury yields.  So any move higher in Treasury rates will immediately impact private credit markets.  Similarly, the stock of Treasury debt dwarfs flows.  So, if private market participants (either domestic or foreign) get nervous, their resultant selling paper will drive yields sharply higher still.

Going forward, the optimal path for the Fed is to more precisely hone its communication and be less dismissive of realistic risks.