Liqudity Traps are For Real

When I was studying economics, the idea that an economy might face a “liquidity trap” seemed absurd. Basically, the concept of the liquidity trap was that the monetary authorities could not “push on a string”. In other words, the liquidity trap represented a time when the central bank could inject a large amount of reserves into the banking system and people (and businesses) would prefer to hold more money than to hold debt. Thus, funds could not get into the bond market which would mean that businesses would not invest in inventories, plant, or, equipment, and the economy would stay mired at a low rate of activity.

This was why deficit spending on the part of the government was necessary, at least for those following the Keynesian dogma, because it was the only way to increase aggregate demand and re-charge economic activity.

Well, we are in a liquidity trap. The Federal Reserve has injected more than $1.0 trillion of excess reserves into the banking system and has kept short-term interest rates close to zero. And, commercial banks have not lent these excess reserves so they continue to rest on the balance sheets of the banking system. The question is, what needs to be done next?

Furthermore, the government has tried deficit spending to spur on the economy, but this effort seems to have had a less-than-dramatic impact on the economic recovery now seemingly underway. Keynesian dogmatists argue vociferously that the problem is that the government has not spent enough…that the Obama administration has been too timid.

But, this approach to the concept of liquidity traps hinges upon the assumption that the crucial economic relationship is found on the asset side of the balance sheet, on the division of assets between holding money or holding bonds. The analysis completely ignores the liability side of the balance sheet. Nothing is said about the amount of leverage the economic unit has built into its balance sheet. Hence, the issue of whether or not an economic unit has “too much” debt doesn’t even enter the picture. And, this is the problem.

There is an article in the Financial Times this morning that I believe does a good job in addressing this issue. The article is “Leverage Crises are Nature’s Way of Telling Us to Slow Down” by Jamil Baz, Chief Investment Strategist for GLG Partners (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/580fa460-8e8d-11df-964e-00144feab49a.html).

Baz argues that the near-collapse of the world financial system followed by a deep recession was “a crisis of leverage.” The ratio of total debt to gross domestic product in the United States reached 350 percent in 2007. Whereas nations could perhaps maintain a level of 200 percent and still achieve healthy economic growth, the 350 percent figure that remains in the United States (and that also exists at higher levels in many of the leading developed countries) cannot be sustained.

The consequence is that at some time in the future the United States and other developed countries are going to have to deleverage. But, deleveraging is going to be costly in terms of future economic growth. We, in essence, have to pay for the past sins we have committed in building up such an enormous debt structure.

Baz presents “three hard realities we need to bear in mind” that result from having too much leverage. These hard realities are:

• When you are bankrupt, you either have to default on your debts or you save so you can repay your debts;
• Policy choices under such circumstances are not appetizing with one school of thought advising taking morphine now followed by cold turkey later and the other school proposing cold turkey now;
• If you are a politician, you may be under the illusion that you are in charge whereas the real decision-maker is the bond market.

He concludes: “maybe leverage crises are nature’s way of telling us to slow down. Policymakers can ignore this message at their own peril. In their anxiousness to avoid past mistakes, they run the risk of an even bigger mistake: fighting leverage with still more leverage, a strategy that might suitably be dubbed “gambling for resurrection”.

The liquidity trap now being faced by policy makers comes from the liability side of the balance sheet. People and businesses are faced with the choice of either going bankrupt or increasing their savings so as to repay their debts. As Baz says, “This is neither ideology nor economics, simply arithmetics.”

But, it does mean that commercial banks may not want to lend and people and businesses, in aggregate, may not want to borrow. Pushing on a string in this case has little or nothing to do with the asset side of balance sheets and everything to do with the liability side of balance sheets. The Federal Reserve cannot force the commercial banks to lend or people to borrow.

The liquidity trap looked at in this way is real and has been operating for more than a year.

The problem is that if you consider the liquidity trap in this way you can clearly see the dilemma presented by Baz in terms of the policy choices that are currently available. This is why one could argue that it took so long for the Great Depression to end. People and businesses had to work off their debts…they had to go “cold turkey” for a while. In this sense, the economists Irving Fisher and Joseph Schumpeter were closer to understanding the economic situation that existed in the 1930s than was Keynes!

If Baz is correct then the choices are pain now versus more pain in the future. The problems associated with the increased leveraging of the economy cannot be put off forever. Debt must eventually be paid down!

The State of the Bailout

Treasury Secretary Paulson gave a press conference yesterday and indicated that things had changed…that the focus of the bailout effort would not be on the purchase of ‘toxic assets’ but would be aimed to assist the capital needs of financial institutions and consumer finance. This ‘shift’ in focus has been duly noted by the press.

Is the ‘bailout’ program having any success?

To answer this question, I am roughly in the same spot of someone I heard being interviewed on Marketplace on NPR radio: the ‘expert’ was asked the following question “Has the efforts to add liquidity to financial markets and financial institutions shown any results to date?” His reply: “I think things are better than they would have been if the efforts had not been made.”

Does that give you a lot of confidence?

I just don’t think that at this time anyone can say more. We are in the middle of a situation that no one present has ever been through. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, an expert on the Great Depression, has seen to it that financial markets and financial institutions have been flooded with liquidity. From the banking week ending September 10, 2008, Reserve Bank Credit has risen from about $890 billion to $2.1 trillion in the banking week ending November 5, 2008. This is roughly a 210% increase in a matter of 8 weeks. (Dare I remind you that it took 94 years for the total of Reserve Bank Credit to reach just $890 billion and only eight weeks to add $1,167 billion more!)

The $700 billion bailout bill…is now turning into a provision of capital for financial institutions…a provision that the Treasury hopes will buy time for institutions to work out their bad asset problems. The unknown question here is whether or not $700 billion is enough or will Congress have to float more funds.

The underlying rationale for the provision of all this liquidity is that either (1) officials are going to be blamed for allowing another MAJOR economic bust to take place or (2) these officials are going to have a problem cleaning up for all the liquidity that they have supplied to the financial markets on such short notice. Success, in the eyes of the officials means that they will have to clean up all the liquidity once the financial markets begin working again. Failure…”is not an option.”

No one knows at this time what is going to happen…

The idea is to keep tossing more and more liquidity into the pot until financial institutions feel that enough is enough! No one has been here before! This is all new!

Your guess is as good as mine…

And then there is the need for fiscal stimulus. The Congress is going to consider a stimulus package which seems to be similar to the first stimulus package they passed earlier this year. It will be aimed at consumers and, although it may not be any more effective than the first package, it can be done quickly, and it will show that the Congress IS doing something AND any little stimulus to the economy will be appreciated.

But, a second stimulus bill is being talked up. This one would be more capital intensive and aim at real projects like projects to rebuild the United States infrastructure. The idea here is that consumers are not going to start spending much until their job security is enhanced and they are sure that they will hold onto their homes. Businesses are going to have to restructure their balance sheets and have some confidence that consumers are going to start spending again before they loosen their purse strings and begin to invest in capital projects again. We seem to be a long way from either of these so the argument goes that the Government needs to engage in some real “Keynesian” pump-priming. The problem with a Government expenditure program like this is that it takes time to prepare and then, once the bill is passed, it takes time for the projects to be implemented. So, help does not come quickly.

And, what about the stock markets? When are they going to come back? Well, we hear all the time that the price an investor is willing to pay for a stock is dependent upon future cash flows. Right now, market expectations concerning future cash flows are pretty depressed and uncertain. Investors must be able to sense a turnaround in future cash flows for them to develop any confidence to begin purchasing stocks. And, investors don’t really know the value of the assets on the books of a large number of companies. To me, a good argument can still be made for more asset charge offs, more bankruptcies, and more depressed forecasts of future cash flows. In my mind, we are not near the bottom here, particularly given the situation described above.

What about uncertainty?

There is lots of it. Much of the uncertainty pertains to the programs that will be coming out of the new administration and the leadership that is put into place by that administration. It is still a long way until January 20, 2009. The current administration has been reluctant to do anything in the past until it became absolutely necessary to do something about the financial markets and the economy. They still want to pass on as much of the decision making as possible to the newly elected administration. So, we are still in a limbo as far as the national leadership is concerned.

What about the international situation and international leadership?

Also an unknown. People are talking about a new Bretton Woods…the international financial structure set up after the second world war. First off, that conference had two years of preparation and negotiation before the meeting was held. There has basically been little or no preparation for the meetings to take place this weekend. Second, the first Bretton Woods conference had seasoned world leadership behind it. That is not the case at the current time. Third, there is almost no intellectual consensus concerning the cause of the current situation and what should be done about it. Fourth, the world is still going through a economic downturn with more countries declaring every week that they are now in a recession.

International coordination and cooperation are going to have to be vital components of the world economic and financial markets in the future but for right now, I don’t think that we can expect much concrete to be forthcoming from the world community.

So, in my view, we will continue to see a downward drift to stock markets with a substantial amount of volatility. What else is new?

For bond markets, United States government securities are going to continue to be the pick for risk-averse investors and spreads will continue to rise between the least risky debt and that considered to be more risky. I saw that the spread between Baa corporate bonds and Aaa corporate bonds exceeded 300 basis points last week. For even lesser credits the spread has been increasing at an almost exponential rate. If there is any indication that the credit crisis is NOT over, it can be picked up from the market place.

The only thing that seems to be positive news at this time is that the Bush plan to get the price of oil below $60 a barrel has been tremendously successful so far!

A Liquidity Trap?

Is this what a liquidity trap looks like?

A liquidity trap gives one the feeling that the monetary authorities are pushing on a string. The amount of liquidity the Federal Reserve and other central banks around the world have provided for the financial markets has been huge. The Paulson Plan was supposed to create confidence that illiquid assets would now have some liquidity. The Fed Plan to purchase commercial paper was supposed to create confidence that illiquid assets would now have some liquidity.

Yet, the financial markets remain silent.

Seemingly, no one wants to commit because no one is sure about the solvency of other participants in the financial markets.

Bernanke spooked the financial markets again yesterday as he talked about a possible cut in interest targets…which he did follow through on. The speech was to the National Association for Business Economists at their 50th anniversary get-together in Washington, D. C.

The message the market heard, however, was how dire things were.

And, the market asked…what does Bernanke know that we don’t?

The absence of leadership seems to reach new heights daily. (See Mase: Economics and Finance for October 7, 2008.)

But, now we are apparently in a liquidity trap. Consumers are pulling back their spending…the latest figures out on consumer credit even show a decline. Businesses are consolidating and cutting spending and hiring plans. State and Local governments are going to the Federal Government to get cash to help them meet payrolls. And, then the Federal Government…

Get out your old copy of Keynes’ General Theory.