Author: ColinTwiggs

Posted on

Low interest rates and secular stagnation

Interesting observation by Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, a research associate at the NBER:

In recent theoretical work, Caballero, Farhi, and I show that the safe-asset scarcity mutates at the ZLB [Zero Lower Bound], from a benign phenomenon that depresses risk-free rates to a malign one where interest rates cannot equilibrate asset markets any longer, leading to a global recession. The reason is that the decline in output reduces net-asset demand more than asset supply. Hence our analysis predicts the emergence of potentially persistent global-liquidity traps, a situation that actually exists in most of the advanced economies today.

…..our results point to a modern — and more sinister — version of the Triffin dilemma. As the world economy grows faster than that of the U.S., so does the global demand for safe assets relative to their supply. This depresses global interest rates and could push the global economy into a persistent ZLB environment, a form of secular stagnation.

Source: The Structure of the International Monetary System | NBER

Posted on

APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding | MacroBusiness

From Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness:

…..the banks’ reliance on offshore funding hit an unprecedented 54% of GDP in the December quarter:

As always, the key risk is that the banks’ ability to continue borrowing from offshore rests with foreigners’ willingness to continue extending them credit. This willingness will be tested in the event that Australia’s sovereign credit rating is downgraded (automatically downgrading the banks’ credit ratings), there is another global shock, or a sharp deterioration in the Australian economy (raising Australia’s risk premia).

The Federal Budget, too, is now hostage to the banks’ offshore borrowing binge as it cannot borrow to spend on infrastructure or other initiatives for fear that Australia will lose its AAA credit rating, potentially leading to an unraveling of the private debt bubble created by Australia’s banks.

That APRA could stand by and allow the banks’ to borrow externally like drunken sailors is a hallmark of regulatory failure.

One in four dollars of bank assets is funded by offshore borrowing. A precarious position even for a stable economy (like Ireland?), let alone one hitched to the boom and bust commodity cycle. Smacks of moral hazard by the banks.

Source: APRA waves wet lettuce at bank offshore funding – MacroBusiness

Posted on

The future of Chinese steel | MacroBusiness

Chinese Steel

From Andrew Batson’s interview with Cai Rang, chairman of the China Iron & Steel Research Institute Group:

China’s current steel production capacity is 1.2 billion tons, but domestic demand cannot completely absorb this capacity. In 2015 China exported about 100 million tons of steel products; this was a relief for domestic capacity but a shock to the international market. Already nine European countries have made antidumping complaints, and Japan, Korea and India have also complained. This shows that our country’s current steel production capacity is not sustainable, and must be genuinely reduced.

Now the relevant departments are drafting the 13th five-year plan for the iron and steel industry, and the preliminary plan is to first cut 200 million tons, and eventually stabilize steel capacity around 700 million tons.

How will a 40 percent cut in Chinese steel production impact on Australian iron ore exports? Not well, I suspect.

Source: The future of Chinese steel – MacroBusiness

Posted on

Headmaster Turnbull takes cane to banks

Elizabeth Knight quotes prime minister Malcolm Turnbull speaking at Westpac’s 199th birthday lunch:

Meanwhile Turnbull – himself a former head of the Australian chapter of Goldman Sachs – told those attending the Westpac lunch that bank culture must shift from one that traditionally had been all about profit to one that took into account broader social responsibility.

Remuneration and promotion cannot any longer be based solely on direct financial contribution to the bottom line.

While bank bosses have been talking the same kind of talk for a while now, the growing number of instances where the behaviour of the banks had fallen short as a result of the drive to increase profit (and personal bonuses derived from making returns) are becoming harder to explain away using the excuse of a few bad apples.

“We expect our bankers to have higher standards, we expect them always, rigorously, to put their customers’ interests first – to deal with their depositors and their borrowers, with those they advise and those with whom they transact in precisely the same way they would have them deal with them,” he said.

Turnbull has hit on a key risk area for banks: remuneration structures that reward short-term profit objectives promote a risk-taking culture. Bank deals often look impressive at the start only to sour later. Incentives that encourage employee share purchases align staff interests with those of shareholders — a prudent, long-term outlook — while share options and bonus schemes encourage a short-term focus, aggressive risk-taking and divisional rivalry that can damage long-term value.

APRA may consider remuneration structures as outside their risk management ambit but it is time for a re-think. Toxic management culture is the biggest risk of all.

“Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.” ~ Warren Buffett

Source: Headmaster Malcolm Turnbull takes cane to banks leaving Westpac management ginger

Posted on

RBA leaves official cash rate at 2pc

Jens Meyer quotes RBA governor Glenn Stevens:

While the decision to keep rates unchanged was widely expected, analysts were speculating that the governor would show some concern about the recent steep rise in the Australian dollar’s exchange rate, which gained nearly 12 per cent from its January lows to a peak of US77.23¢ last week.

Mr Stevens duly added a paragraph to this month’s statement, noting that the currency had appreciated “somewhat”.

“In part, this [the recent rise] reflects some increase in commodity prices, but monetary developments elsewhere in the world have also played a role,” he said, referring to recent monetary easing by other central banks including the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank, as well as the decision by the US Federal Reserve to reduce the pace of interest rate hikes.

“Under present circumstances, an appreciating exchange rate could complicate the adjustment under way in the economy,” he added.

But anyone hoping for a stronger “jawbone” was disappointed and the Australian dollar shot up by about half a cent to the day’s high of US76.32¢, before falling back in late trade to around US76¢.

Central banks around the globe are destabilizing financial markets and the RBA responds with a polite acknowledgement at the end of its statement. Someone please tell the governor: If you want to run with the big dogs, you’ve got to learn to pee high.

Source: RBA leaves official cash rate at 2pc

Posted on

Where oil goes, stocks will follow

Where oil goes, stocks will follow. Crude oil prices are the canary in the coalmine at present. June 2016 Light Crude futures retreated from resistance at $43/barrel. Breach of medium-term support at $38 warns of another test of primary support at $32/barrel. Failure of support at $32 would offer a target of $22/barrel*, while respect of support would suggest that a bottom is forming.

June 2016 Light Crude Futures

* Target calculation: 32 – ( 42 – 32 ) = 22

The ASX started Monday with an early rally but ran into a spate of selling before the close. ASX 200 follow-through below 5000 would warn of a test of primary support at 4750. Declining 21-day Twiggs Money Flow, below zero, indicates medium-term selling pressure. Failure of primary support would reaffirm the long-term target of 4000*.

ASX 200

* Target calculation: 5000 – ( 6000 – 5000 ) = 4000

Posted on

Australia’s banks are ‘too big to get sick’: APRA

Sally Rose at The Age quotes APRA’s executive general manager of supervision and support, Charles Littrell:

“Australia has taken a big national bet on the rise of Asia, in particular on the rise of China, from a developing country to developed status,” Mr Littrell said.

He described APRA’s stance of forcing the banks to hold higher levels of equity than they might like as an “insurance policy” against that bet.

“Most of Australia does business on the basis that China is going to continue to rise relatively smoothly and that the Communist government can manage macroeconomic policy. At APRA we are not so convinced,” he told an Australian Centre for Financial Studies event in Melbourne on Friday.

“Australia’s economy has done absolutely brilliantly well for a really long time, but it is brittle: this could all go away quite rapidly. Our aspiration for the major banks is that they are not accelerants in that situation, but shock absorbers.”

Too big to get sick
The financial system inquiry chaired by David Murray said Australia’s banks should be “unquestionably strong” compared to global banks because of Australia’s reliance on international funding for its growth; APRA has said strength will be determined on a range of measures. Mr Littrell said there is plenty of focus internationally on banks that are “too big to fail”, but the relative importance to the economy of the Australian banks means they are “almost too big to get sick”.

Australian banks face three problems:

  1. Huge exposure to residential mortgages in a toppy market;
  2. Low capital reserves against those assets compared to international competitors; and
  3. Reliance on volatile wholesale funding in international markets which, like the proverbial umbrella, international lenders will want to take back when it rains.

Source: Australia’s banks are ‘too big to get sick’: APRA

Posted on

Megalogenis: Australian Panic! | MacroBusiness

From Unconventional Economist at Macrobusiness:

…..George is back, this time with The Australian Panic in a new Quarterly Essay:

The Australian Panic

In this urgent essay, George Megalogenis argues that Australia risks becoming globalisation’s next and most unnecessary victim. The next shock, whenever it comes, will find us with our economic guard down, and a political system that has shredded its authority. Megalogenis outlines the challenge for Malcolm Turnbull and his government. Our tax system is unfair and we have failed to invest in infrastructure and education. Both sides of politics are clinging defensively to an old model because it tells them a reassuring story of Australian success. But that model has been exhausted by capitalism’s extended crisis and the end of the mining boom. Trusting to the market has left us with gridlocked cities, growing inequality and a corporate sector that feels no obligation to pay tax. It is time to redraw the line between market and state.

Balancing Act is a passionate look at the politics of change and renewal, and a bold call for active government. It took World War II to provide the energy and focus for the reconstruction that laid the foundation for modern Australia. Will it take another crisis to prompt a new reconstruction?

I think George has it right this time.

Source: Megalogenis: From Australian Moment to Australian Panic! – MacroBusiness

Posted on

Private health insurance fails to deliver

From Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness:

The high financial overhead of private insurance in Australia means that only 84 cents in every dollar collected by private insurers is returned as benefits, with the rest going to administrative costs and corporate profits. By contrast, Medicare returns 94 cents in the dollar, even after the cost of tax collection is taken into account. In the United States, which is highly dependent on private insurance, only 69 cents in the dollar are returned as payment for health services.

More importantly, competing private insurers have less ability to control prices demanded by powerful service providers. If one insurer tries to bargain hard with hospitals to keep prices down, the hospitals simply choose to do business with another insurer.

By contrast a single national insurer has the market power to push down costs and improve utilisation. The below chart of health costs across 18 OECD countries highlights this point: single national insurers provide cheaper (and often better) health care than systems heavily reliant on private health insurance:

This is an argument for abandoning private health insurance, not private health care. Experience of Italy’s Lombardy region suggests a level-playing field, with open competition between public and private health care providers, delivers superior results. From Margherita Stancati at WSJ online:

Like other European countries, Italy offers universal health-care coverage backed by the state. Italians can go to a public hospital, for example, without involving an insurance company. The patients are charged a small co-pay, but most of the bill is paid by the government. As a result, the great majority of Italians don’t bother to buy private health insurance unless they want to seek treatment from private doctors or hospitals, which are relatively few.

Offering guaranteed reimbursements to public hospitals, though, took away the hospitals’ incentive to improve service or rein in costs. Inefficiencies were rampant as a result, and the quality of Italy’s public health care suffered for years. Months-long waiting lists became the norm for nonemergency procedures—even heart surgery—in most of the country.

Big changes came in 1997, when Italy’s national government decentralized the country’s health-care system, giving the regions control over the public money that goes to hospitals within their own borders…..

In much of the country, regions have continued to use the standards of care and reimbursement rates recommended by Rome. Some also give preferential treatment to public hospitals, making it more difficult for private hospitals to qualify for public funds.

Lombardy, by contrast, has increased its quality standards, set its own reimbursement rates and, most important, put public and private hospitals on an equal footing by making each equally eligible for public funds. If a hospital meets the quality standards and charges the accepted reimbursement rate, it qualifies. Patients are free to choose between state-run and publicly funded private hospitals at no extra cost. Their co-pay is the same in either case. As a result, public and many private hospitals in Lombardy compete directly for patients and funds.

…..Around 30% of hospital care in Lombardy is private now—more than anywhere else in Italy. And service in both the private and public sector has improved.

State hospitals have improved their service levels while private hospitals have lowered costs in response to the increased competition. A win for all …..except private health insurers.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper