Sorry to interrupt your presidential election celebrations or commiserations, but it’s time to get back to work on the global crisis, which unfortunately is far from being over. The G20 summit is fast approaching (November 14-15th) and – to say the least – the agenda needs to focus more on some immediate problems. Reuters’ MacroScope has a piece from me today on arguably the most pressing issue: money.
Category: Op-ed
Economic Stimulus and Investing for the Long Term
With recession news getting worse every day (here’s one depressing roundup), there is a high likelihood that the Congress will pass an economic stimulus plan either in a lame-duck session in November or immediately after reconvening in January. General sentiment seems to be against tax rebate checks (Martin Feldstein summarizes the argument that the vast majority of the rebates went into savings, not consumption) and in favor of fast-acting measures like extended unemployment benefits and direct aid to state and local governments to replace lost tax revenues. In addition, however, we (and Larry Summers) think that now is the time to invest in long-term economic productivity, for example through infrastructure projects, in part because we are probably looking at a long recession. Our thoughts are presented under Simon’s name and picture on the National Journal’s Economy Blog, which is hosting a discussion of the stimulus package. Note that even the participant from the American Enterprise Institute favors a stimulus package of between $300 and $500 billion.
Smoke in the Eurozone
So far, rising spreads on credit default swaps have accurately predicted what sectors of the global economy would run into trouble next. The sharp rise in spreads on emerging market countries’ debt is old news. But recently, CDS spreads have been rising for countries that are part not only of the EU but of the Eurozone, such as Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and even Italy. The basic fear is that these countries may not be big enough to bail out their banks, so risk has spilled from the private sector into the private sector. The need for flexibility in monetary policy (currently ceded to the European Central Bank), the pain of a severe recession, and the increase in nationalist politics that often accompanies economic misery could lead one or more countries to abandon the euro. The costs of abandoning the euro would be very high, but it is a scenario that has changed from unthinkable to merely unlikely.
There are steps that policy makers can take now to reduce the threats of national defaults and of a fragmentation of the Eurozone. We discuss the situation and our policy proposals in a new op-ed in The Guardian.
Next Up: Emerging Markets
In Washington this weekend, there seems to be remarkably little realization of the difficulties already facing emerging markets. Even if things start to go much better in and for the G7 in the next 48 hours, you cannot easily get back to the situation before Iceland’s banks failed and effectively Iceland was left to its own devices. And, of course, it is impossible to return to where we were before the series of unfortunate events surrounding Lehman and AIG.
But what exactly does this imply for various kinds of emerging markets? Countries with clear pre-existing vulnerabilities were already in trouble last week, those with any kind of small cracks in their economic armour are now being tested, and even the apparently invulnerable may come under pressure. According to our analysis, now published in Forbes.com, this will be a stress test like no other.
Global Crisis: Latest Analysis and Proposals
Our latest analysis and proposals have been published by the Washington Post (print edition Sunday) in an article by Peter and Simon entitled “The Next World War? It Could Be Financial.” If the world’s leading financial powers cannot agree on a coordinated response, it could be “every nation for itself” – a repeat, on a larger scale, of the emerging markets crisis of 1997-98. We propose six concrete steps that policy makers – beginning with the G7 and IMF meetings this weekend – can take to limit the risks of such an outcome.
Feel free to comment with criticisms or suggestions.
European Response to the Financial Crisis
Just a couple weeks ago, European finance ministers were insisting that the credit crisis was an American invasion that they were adequately prepared to repel, with German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck insisting that an American-style rescue plan was not required in Europe because the financial crisis was an “American problem.” As we’ve learned over the past few weeks, things change very fast. Although European leaders now appreciate the seriousness of a crisis that threatens their economies every bit as much as the American one – perhaps more, judging by the number of bank bailouts over the last few days – they have not been able to implement solutions even on the scale of the Paulson plan. The on-line Economists’ Forum of the Financial Times published (Tuesday morning in the US) a new op-ed by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson describing the challenges facing European policymakers and presenting some concrete solutions – including interest rate cuts and bank recapitalization, for starters.
Update: Martin Wolf’s latest column for Wednesday’s paper, just out (Tuesday evening in the US), takes similar positions. In the column, Martin discusses how the deepening crisis over the last week has led him to change his position. Many in European leadership positions follow Martin’s views closely, so hopefully his forceful arguments will have an immediate effect.
It’s All About the Price
The debate on what the Treasury should or will pay for mortgage-backed securities has moved fast in the last week. Last week, Mr Paulson said it would be “market prices.” On Tuesday, Mr Bernanke said it would be “close to mark-to-model prices,” which you can presume would be above, and perhaps substantially above market prices. Since then, Mr Bernanke seemed to back track from that statement, towards some version of market prices.
But what are market prices or any other prices in this situation? You need to answer this question to know whether the Treasury is intending to overpay — or whether, after the fact, you can figure out if they did in some meaningful sense overpay.
We attempted to sort this out in The Price of Salvation on the Financial Times website (Economist Forum). It’s hard to say if any of this is getting through, but we are a little bit encouraged by the reaction.
The Paulson Bailout and Governance
Watch Your Wallet
Ordinarily, you would not hand $100 to your broker to invest on your behalf without some idea of how he or she would invest your money. You would be even less likely to hand over your cash to someone planning to invest it in illiquid assets with no established market prices. However, the original version of the government bailout plan, released on Thursday last week, handed $700 billion of taxpayer money to Treasury to invest in mortgage-backed securities at any price it saw fit.
Our Washington Post op-ed article discusses this governance question and floats a few possible solutions that could align incentives properly and promote transparency. At the same time, opposition from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill has greatly increased the chances that some form of improved governance will be included in the final plan. In following the ongoing debate, however, it will be important to make sure that there are adequate mechanisms for setting prices objectively and transparently, or else the opportunity for abuse will remain.