Andie Xie
The global financial crisis is far from over, and now a global economic crisis seems to be unfolding. Recent economic data suggests that the global economy is decelerating rapidly. Even though the US Congress reluctantly passed the USD 700 billion Wall Street rescue plan, stock markets are already focusing on the economic downside. Many investors are bearish enough to talk about a “nuclear winter” for the global economy. How bad could it be?
The Anglo-Saxon economies will follow a similar pattern to that which East Asian economies experienced a little over a decade ago, when the Asian financial crisis led to a 70-90% drop in asset prices, and a 5-10% contraction in most East Asian economies. Australia, the UK, and the US could contract by 2-5%, only held up by their large service economies and strong social welfare systems.
A contraction of such magnitude for large developed economies has not occurred since the Second World War. Hence, the term “nuclear winter” to describe the coming economic downturn may not be an exaggeration.
Anglo-Saxon economies account for over one-third of the global economy and have been a demand driver through their large current account deficits. Their downturn will drag down their trading partners. The eurozone is already stumbling, as the weak dollar has allowed the US to gain market share against EU exporters, and the unfolding US recession has cut demand for European products in their largest market. This will drive the eurozone, particularly export-reliant Germany, into a recession, with Japan following closely on its heels.
China’s exports will also suffer, possibly going into decline in 2009. China’s exports are 36% of GDP in nominal value and probably 25% of GDP in value added. In previous downturns, China was small and cheap enough to expand its exports through market-share gains, but now, as the largest exporter in the world, there is nowhere left to expand to.
If the property bubble were to burst, as now seems to be happening, its economic impact would be much bigger than what we’ve seen so far. And with hot money leaving China as investors rush for safe havens, and weakening exports exacerbating the liquidity drain, there seems to be little that can be done at the moment to reverse falling property prices. Exports and property are currently the biggest drivers of Chinese growth. While I expect infrastructure construction will pick up, fiscal stimuli simply can’t offset the impact of a fall in these two markets. China’s 2009 growth rate will likely reach a 10-year low.
What about America’s USD 700 billion bailout package? The package may stabilize the financial system, i.e., save large financial institutions from bankruptcy, but it won’t stimulate lending and keep the real economy afloat. In Anglo-Saxon economies, consumer lending, built on rising property values, sustained a prolonged consumption boom. With property prices falling, it’s hard to imagine households wanting to borrow, let alone banks actually giving them the money. The USD 700 billion is likely to sit on the banks’ balance sheets, not return to the real economy.
Central banks around the world cut interest rates last month, despite high inflation, hoping to boost demand. This will, in all likelihood, merely lead to greater inflation. Rate cuts stimulate demand by encouraging borrowing, but they can’t work magic. With household balance sheets so damaged, credit demand will only return when households are again on a sound footing.
Weak demand, however, won’t erase inflation. First, energy and food prices remain elevated due to supply and demand issues - demand in the ex-Soviet bloc is rising rather than falling, and demand among oil exporting countries is especially strong. Second, manufacturing prices won’t fall. Ten years ago, as multinationals moved factories from developed economies to China, prices converged towards China’s production costs. But, now China’s costs are rising, and its production capacity is shrinking, both of which will cause prices to rise. Third, IT is fully integrated into production costs.
The dollar rallied over the past month, bringing it back to center stage in traders’ consciousness. The Australian dollar (AUD) and the euro are down 15% against it, the pound sterling down by half as much. It isn’t yet anything to get excited about though. The dollar’s bounce is due to the unwinding of carry trades. The rapid appreciation of the yen against the AUD, for example, is due to high interest rates in Australia attracting even retail investors who borrowed yen at 0.5% interest and bought the Australian dollar at 7%. When Australia cut its interest rate, the carry trades were unwound quickly, and the AUD tumbled.
The dollar’s strength has also had a big impact on commodity prices. Many speculators have invested heavily in the “long commodities and short dollar” trade. As the dollar strengthened, they unwound their positions in commodities too, causing prices to tumble. As I argued above, though, the constraints on the supply side and demand in emerging economies will favor high energy and agriculture prices for years to come.
As the technical factors run their course, speculators will come back into energy and gold. Real interest rates are already negative, and rate cuts could accentuate this. With paper currency depreciating in real value, it is rational for investors to buy value-preserving commodities like energy and gold. The bullish story for energy and gold may last for a decade. Of course, they will fluctuate, as the current trend demonstrates. But they will remain good assets in an era of inflation.
The dollar’s strength will continue for three to six months. As the US economy slows, so will its imports. The trade deficit may fall quickly enough to strengthen the dollar further, but monetary loosening measures will come back to bite later. The US Federal Reserve (Fed) cares more about the economy than inflation. Indeed, when the market shifts its attention to the ballooning debts of the Federal government, the dollar could have a bigger crisis than the last one.
In addition to bailouts and rate cuts, more radical measures are coming. The Fed is already talking about buying commercial papers that businesses issue. The market for commercial papers is pretty much dead now. The risk premium as priced in a credit default swap market is far too high for businesses to function normally. If the Fed purchases the papers directly, it is essentially lending to a business at a risk premium that wouldn’t be touched on the open market. Investors don’t trust these businesses, because they can’t understand their balance sheets. The Fed would use taxpayer money to take on this risk.
Also, central banks could buy government bonds to monetize national debts. With the US’ budget deficit likely to be 4% of GDP in 2008 and an astonishing 6% of GDP in 2009 - without counting the bailout costs - it may have to issue USD 3 trillion of new papers into the Treasury market. If the market cannot absorb this, and the Fed steps in to buy, it is equivalent to printing money to fund fiscal spending.
When it comes to the “inflation or deflation” debate, we should consider who Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is. He has spent his lifetime researching ways to stop deflation, i.e., finding new ways to print money. When push comes to shove, he will do anything to stop deflation. With Bernanke at the helm of the Fed, we should worry about inflation, not deflation.
The creative monetary measures ahead could stabilize the business sector, but won’t prevent a recession. Households first need to decrease leverage if they’re going to take out further debt. The total wealth in the world may have declined by USD 15 trillion. A similar amount could be lost in the next 12 months. It is not possible to get consumers spending again with wealth destruction of such magnitude.
After the recession, I don’t see how the global economy can resume robust growth quickly. Debt-driven Anglo-Saxon consumption has powered the global economy for years. But, after the fallout, investors are unlikely to make the same mistake twice. Most people have long memories.
The Anglo-Saxon economies will follow a similar pattern to that which East Asian economies experienced a little over a decade ago, when the Asian financial crisis led to a 70-90% drop in asset prices, and a 5-10% contraction in most East Asian economies. Australia, the UK, and the US could contract by 2-5%, only held up by their large service economies and strong social welfare systems.
A contraction of such magnitude for large developed economies has not occurred since the Second World War. Hence, the term “nuclear winter” to describe the coming economic downturn may not be an exaggeration.
Anglo-Saxon economies account for over one-third of the global economy and have been a demand driver through their large current account deficits. Their downturn will drag down their trading partners. The eurozone is already stumbling, as the weak dollar has allowed the US to gain market share against EU exporters, and the unfolding US recession has cut demand for European products in their largest market. This will drive the eurozone, particularly export-reliant Germany, into a recession, with Japan following closely on its heels.
China’s exports will also suffer, possibly going into decline in 2009. China’s exports are 36% of GDP in nominal value and probably 25% of GDP in value added. In previous downturns, China was small and cheap enough to expand its exports through market-share gains, but now, as the largest exporter in the world, there is nowhere left to expand to.
If the property bubble were to burst, as now seems to be happening, its economic impact would be much bigger than what we’ve seen so far. And with hot money leaving China as investors rush for safe havens, and weakening exports exacerbating the liquidity drain, there seems to be little that can be done at the moment to reverse falling property prices. Exports and property are currently the biggest drivers of Chinese growth. While I expect infrastructure construction will pick up, fiscal stimuli simply can’t offset the impact of a fall in these two markets. China’s 2009 growth rate will likely reach a 10-year low.
What about America’s USD 700 billion bailout package? The package may stabilize the financial system, i.e., save large financial institutions from bankruptcy, but it won’t stimulate lending and keep the real economy afloat. In Anglo-Saxon economies, consumer lending, built on rising property values, sustained a prolonged consumption boom. With property prices falling, it’s hard to imagine households wanting to borrow, let alone banks actually giving them the money. The USD 700 billion is likely to sit on the banks’ balance sheets, not return to the real economy.
Central banks around the world cut interest rates last month, despite high inflation, hoping to boost demand. This will, in all likelihood, merely lead to greater inflation. Rate cuts stimulate demand by encouraging borrowing, but they can’t work magic. With household balance sheets so damaged, credit demand will only return when households are again on a sound footing.
Weak demand, however, won’t erase inflation. First, energy and food prices remain elevated due to supply and demand issues - demand in the ex-Soviet bloc is rising rather than falling, and demand among oil exporting countries is especially strong. Second, manufacturing prices won’t fall. Ten years ago, as multinationals moved factories from developed economies to China, prices converged towards China’s production costs. But, now China’s costs are rising, and its production capacity is shrinking, both of which will cause prices to rise. Third, IT is fully integrated into production costs.
The dollar rallied over the past month, bringing it back to center stage in traders’ consciousness. The Australian dollar (AUD) and the euro are down 15% against it, the pound sterling down by half as much. It isn’t yet anything to get excited about though. The dollar’s bounce is due to the unwinding of carry trades. The rapid appreciation of the yen against the AUD, for example, is due to high interest rates in Australia attracting even retail investors who borrowed yen at 0.5% interest and bought the Australian dollar at 7%. When Australia cut its interest rate, the carry trades were unwound quickly, and the AUD tumbled.
The dollar’s strength has also had a big impact on commodity prices. Many speculators have invested heavily in the “long commodities and short dollar” trade. As the dollar strengthened, they unwound their positions in commodities too, causing prices to tumble. As I argued above, though, the constraints on the supply side and demand in emerging economies will favor high energy and agriculture prices for years to come.
As the technical factors run their course, speculators will come back into energy and gold. Real interest rates are already negative, and rate cuts could accentuate this. With paper currency depreciating in real value, it is rational for investors to buy value-preserving commodities like energy and gold. The bullish story for energy and gold may last for a decade. Of course, they will fluctuate, as the current trend demonstrates. But they will remain good assets in an era of inflation.
The dollar’s strength will continue for three to six months. As the US economy slows, so will its imports. The trade deficit may fall quickly enough to strengthen the dollar further, but monetary loosening measures will come back to bite later. The US Federal Reserve (Fed) cares more about the economy than inflation. Indeed, when the market shifts its attention to the ballooning debts of the Federal government, the dollar could have a bigger crisis than the last one.
In addition to bailouts and rate cuts, more radical measures are coming. The Fed is already talking about buying commercial papers that businesses issue. The market for commercial papers is pretty much dead now. The risk premium as priced in a credit default swap market is far too high for businesses to function normally. If the Fed purchases the papers directly, it is essentially lending to a business at a risk premium that wouldn’t be touched on the open market. Investors don’t trust these businesses, because they can’t understand their balance sheets. The Fed would use taxpayer money to take on this risk.
Also, central banks could buy government bonds to monetize national debts. With the US’ budget deficit likely to be 4% of GDP in 2008 and an astonishing 6% of GDP in 2009 - without counting the bailout costs - it may have to issue USD 3 trillion of new papers into the Treasury market. If the market cannot absorb this, and the Fed steps in to buy, it is equivalent to printing money to fund fiscal spending.
When it comes to the “inflation or deflation” debate, we should consider who Fed chairman Ben Bernanke is. He has spent his lifetime researching ways to stop deflation, i.e., finding new ways to print money. When push comes to shove, he will do anything to stop deflation. With Bernanke at the helm of the Fed, we should worry about inflation, not deflation.
The creative monetary measures ahead could stabilize the business sector, but won’t prevent a recession. Households first need to decrease leverage if they’re going to take out further debt. The total wealth in the world may have declined by USD 15 trillion. A similar amount could be lost in the next 12 months. It is not possible to get consumers spending again with wealth destruction of such magnitude.
After the recession, I don’t see how the global economy can resume robust growth quickly. Debt-driven Anglo-Saxon consumption has powered the global economy for years. But, after the fallout, investors are unlikely to make the same mistake twice. Most people have long memories.