March 24, 2009
Advisor Perspectives welcomes guest contributions. The views presented here do not necessarily represent those of Advisor Perspectives.
This essay is excerptedfrom the most recent version of the HCM Market Letter. To subscribe directly to this publication, please go here.
“So long as risk is effectively concealed from borrowers and lenders or actually shifted to others, risk-taking will be excessive. The initial phase of excessive risk-taking will manifest itself as an economic boom, but eventually, when actual losses begin to change the perceptions of borrowers and lenders and begin to impinge upon unsuspecting others, the boom will give way to a bust….[A] market system whose credit markets involve risks that are partially concealed from the lender and partially shifted to others will be biased in the direction of excessive risk-taking. And excessive risks are converted in time into excessive losses.”
Roger Garrison1
The problem with bailouts is that you have to know what you’re bailing out. But neither the U.S. government nor anybody else is capable of estimating the ultimate cost of bailing out such corporate giants as Citigroup, AIG, General Motors, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac (and the list goes on). There are two reasons for this. First, on a stand-alone basis, these companies are opaque and indecipherable entities. Financial innovation left transparency in the dust. Wall Street devoted much of its intellectual and political capital to concealing the risks it was creating. This concealment was deliberate; products needed to be priced inefficiently to produce profits. Second, these companies are integral parts of a networked global economy; as such, their value is completely dependent on the overall health of that network. Unless the network can be restored to health, these assets will remain severely devalued. Right now, the network is very sick. When a system is allowed to hide risk for so long, it is ill-equipped to manage that risk when it finally emerges from the shadows.
The Economic Policy Conundrum
The Obama Administration is facing a near-impossible task trying to bail the U.S. economy out of the muck of years of ill-begotten economic policies. The biggest challenge facing policymakers is not short-term recovery, however. Eventually, stimulus is likely to arrest the forces of economic collapse and stabilize matters – at least temporarily. But the real problem is sowing the seeds of long-term, sustainable, organic economic growth. This is really the crux of the policy challenge. The United States in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 80 years as the result of a panoply of extremely poor economic policy choices. Economist Roger W. Garrison draws an important distinction between “healthy economic growth, which is saving induced (and hence sustainable), and artificial booms, which are policy-induced (and hence unsustainable).”2 In other words, monetary policy that kept interest rates low for an extended period of time, tax policy that favored debt over equity, regulatory policy that allowed financial institutions to operate opaquely, and social policy that pushed home ownership regardless of affordability, all combined to create artificial economic demand that could only be financed with debt because the savings (i.e. equity) to purchase them did not exist.
Moreover, as more and more debt was created through financial engineering and policy prescription, the prices of these were bid up higher and higher. This led these products to become grossly inflated in value compared to any inherent economic worth they might possess. Once the bubble burst, their value dropped precipitously. Unfortunately, the face amount of the debt used to purchase these assets did not adjust downward at the same time. Assets that were purchased at inflated prices are now worth a fraction of what they were purchased for, leaving behind a serious dilemma for the owners of these assets and their creditors.
Following conventional economic thinking, the government believes that the solution lies in policies designed to reflate the value of these assets. The problem with this approach is that it is based on the incurrence of trillions of dollars of additional debt to create the demand needed to purchase these assets. Debt begetting more debt is a poor prescription for sustainable long-term economic growth. At best the government may be able to provide a short-term boost to the economy, but what the economy really needs is a solid, organic foundation for growth. Debt financed government demand can’t be sustained indefinitely, which is why this policy is doomed to fail in the long run. The U.S. balance sheet is not a bottomless pit, although it is increasingly coming to resemble a Black Hole. At some point, the economy will have to generate sufficient tax revenue to pay for this government spending or the country will lose its AAA rating and ultimately become a troubled credit. Economic demand will ultimately have to become savings driven or it will again collapse.
This does not necessarily mean that the government should walk away from creating short-term demand, but it should be extremely circumspect in how it does so. This is where political reality collides with economic reality. The optimum long-term economic solution would be to allow the economy to hit bottom and then begin to rebuild demand naturally. But such a scenario would likely entail an unemployment rate on the order of 15 or 20 percent and an even worse human toll than is already being exacted by the downturn. But it would give the economy an organic base from which to rebuild. The government’s job in such a scenario would be to provide the right kind of safety net (not only of financial support but also job and educational training) to see the citizenry through the crisis. What the U.S. really needs is an economic Marshall Plan to rebuild itself, with all of the sacrifice and public service that would entail. Apparently, that is asking too much in today’s me-first society. Accordingly, the government finds itself compelled to follow policies that may or may not create unsustainable short-term growth and will have to be carefully targeted to promote sustainable long-term growth.
There is a profound difference between healthy, sustainable demand and unhealthy, unsustainable demand, just as we are living the unhappy lesson that there is a great difference between healthy economic activity (i.e. activity that contributes to the productive capacity of the economy) and unhealthy economic activity (i.e. speculative trading and corporate finance transactions). Propping up bad banks through a “good bank/bad bank” model would simply direct funds to the sustenance of past unhealthy economic activity. Starting a new Economic Reconstruction Bank, as HCM has recommended, could make loans available for new productive projects and direct funds into healthy long-term economic activity. Another bout of policy-induced growth will not only repeat the mistakes of the past, but leave the economy even weaker, teetering on an unstable foundation of government support that cannot be sustained indefinitely without impairing America’s balance sheet, credit rating, and ultimately its geopolitical might. Whether America’s short-term political orientation can ever address this conundrum is the greatest question facing policymakers today. HCM has no hesitation in saying that much of what the government has proposed thus far to deal with the crisis won’t come close to dealing with the long-term issue of creating savings-induced or organic growth. This means that any near-term relief (i.e. relief that occurs within the next five years) is most likely to give way to years of below trend growth because the economy will be lacking the organic foundation of growth it needs.
Display article as PDF for printing.
Would you like to send this article to a friend?
Remember, if you have a question or comment, send it to .
