Currency crash

by Jerome a Paris
Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:00:08 AM EST

RGE Monitor had this to say, in its email newsletter:

Does the U.S. dollar's December slide mean the USD has passed its peak? Most likely not. The turn-of-the-year profit-taking on long USD positions creates a near-term blip in the dollar's uptrend but doesn't alter the medium-term trend of appreciation versus the euro. The four horseman of the carry trade apocalypse - Deleveraging, Risk Aversion, Growth Differentials and the Dollar's Reserve Currency Status - would need to retreat before we see a sustained pullback in the EUR/USD from the slide to near-parity ($1.10-$1.30). Governments, banks and other firms are still scrambling for dollars to repay their USD-denominated debt while signs of global recession and credit crisis spur on the flight-to-safety in U.S. Treasuries. European sovereign bonds offer an alternative but inferior safe haven because of the European bond market's fragmentation and exposure to emerging Europe. More aggressive policy response in the U.S. compared to Europe, could bring the U.S. out of a recession faster than the Eurozone (though growth will most likely remain subdued for some years to come), supporting the dollar against the euro. In the longer term, however, once risk appetite revives, the greenback might lose its defenses in wake of worries surrounding U.S. public debt expansion and the potential inflationary effect of quantitative easing.

I think we're rather beyond a "blip" when the dollar and the pound have both lost no less than 15% in less than 10 days. We're in crash territory right now, as the evidence that monetary policy interventions have failed and worries about the UK and US economies continue to mount. We're still in that strange territory where fears of both deflation and inflation are heightened.

I've had the image for a long time that our Anglo Disease-distorted economies were like an inverted pyramid, which which kept on building higher and higher, which increasingly precarious stability. As instability builds up and the pyramid leans, policy-makers try to push back, with the risk of making it fall the other way. Lately, as it started falling on one side, the pushback has been all the more violent, and it's still not clear if it has prevented the fall or only pushed it irreversibly in the other direction.

To get back to the currency issue, the above article is correct in that Deleveraging has recently strengthened the dollar, but that process has now largely run its course. The hedging fund industry has shrunk by half over this year (mostly in the second half) and that movement that sent funds back to the dollar (via liquidation of foreign assets by US or dollar-based investors) is now mostly over. The Growth Differential argument is dubious at best, as the optimism that the Fed was more reactive than the ECB and would boost the US economy more effectively is bumping against the evidence that the slump is getting worse by the day everywhere, but even more so in the US, a reflexion of the deep imbalances that need to be cured. Risk Aversion is likely to favor German Bunds as much as US Treasuries, and the Currency Reserve argument is one until it isn't, ie it is a post hoc constatation rather than an irrevocable reality.

The fact is, we're getting overwhelming evidence that the "success" of the Anglo economies in recent years was counterfeit, that GDP growth was fake (even if its increasingly unequal sharing was very real), and that a lot of dollar-based and pound-based value is dubious. The autumn burst came from liquidation, now the underlying trend is coming back, rather than the other way round as RGE suggests.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
Looks like it's Turkey instead of France for me. Not that that's such a loss. But by then, who knows.

Has queuing theory ever had to be applied to currencies? Sweet jesus.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:26:01 AM EST
I don't know about currencies, but Luis de Sousa had a diary about queuing theory and commodity prices just this week...

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:32:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, that diary brought it to mind. Exchange rates for major currencies should in theory be more stable than commodity prices, shouldn't they?

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:55:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're going to be moving to Turkey?  I'd be interested in hearing about that.  I've thought about moving there myself on occasion.
by Zwackus on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:31:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Millman is currently making a long journey around the world. Currently in MaoriLand, I believe.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 02:39:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He's in Oz now. Latest known stop was Wagga Wagga.
Wagga Wagga (pronounced wogga wogga; IPA: ˈwɔɡə ˈwɔɡə, informally called Wagga) is a city in New South Wales, Australia. Straddling the Murrumbidgee River, Wagga with an urban population of 46,735 people,[is the state's largest and the country's fifth largest inland city, as well as an important agricultural, military, and transport hub of Australia. The city is located midway between the two largest cities in Australia, Sydney and Melbourne, and is the major regional centre for the Riverina and South West Slopes regions.


Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 04:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Look at that, but look at that!

A 17% swing and back again in 3 months???

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:30:34 AM EST
a 17% swing in less than 10 days!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:41:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Both on the way down and on the way up.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:43:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was slightly slower on the way down.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:47:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Close enough for government work, as they say - they stopped for a week's rest before crashing on.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:50:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is one reason the currency traders have been crowing about the profits to be made in this market.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:28:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
why was the Euro up to $1.44 yesterday and is gone down now to $1.38 ? It was down in the 1.36 the day before yesterday. Why should I even look at this?
by mimi on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 01:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You shouldn't.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, of course, it's only symmetric in logscale - otherwise it's 17% one way and 20% the other way :-)

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:39:46 AM EST
in its email newsletter


Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:40:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Roubini Global EconoMonitor

"Ne te courbe que pour aimer..." René Char
by Melanchthon on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:33:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The last paragraph of the diary is to this observer spot-on.

Skennah Kowa
by Crazy Horse on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:43:42 AM EST
You don't create a "shadow banking system" if it is not to counterfeit money.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To some extent, the American economy grew by borrowing money from foreigners, using it to pay Wall Street, and not giving it back. That is real growth, even if not sustainable.

Scamming is a real way to generate income, not a fake one.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:50:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Um, they not just borrowed from foreigners but they lent out more money domestically than allowed by the Central Banks, which then panicked and first discontinued M3 tallying and then injected real money to make good on all the forged money.

Because loans create money and loaning beyond what regulation allows is creating money illegally, that is, counterfeiting.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:53:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I just meant that within all the smoke and mirrors, there appears to have been a real transfer of funds to the US, which they used for Wall Street and to build cheap housing.
by GreatZamfir on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, no, you don't get it, it's all China's fault. They forced the US to borrow all that foreign money.

Don't be unserious!

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:01:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a cynical choice by Asians and oil-producing countries. What else?

You mean - you suspect the American ruling class of making cynical choices?

<round-eyed with shock>

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:54:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I apologize. Although I was under the impression that the Chinese lend to government, and made very sure in the Fannie Mae case that they would get their money back. European banks and funds appear to have been much more gullible investors in the scammy parts.

Is it clear, with hindsight, that the Chinese over-careful strategy was the right one? All the well-publicized losses in Europe add up to a lot, but the "lost" interest for the Chinese by keeping mostly to treasury bonds must add up to a lot too.

by GreatZamfir on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Chinese were not in it for the return on their capital, unlike all those other speculators you talk about.

I am not sure from the tone of your comments whether you realise I'm being ironic when I blame the Chinese...

It is not clear to me who's to "blame" or what their goals were, but the mess sure is monumental.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 08:49:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I understood completely. My "apology" was meant in the same spirit, but during the post my mind changed to a more serious question, and on the internetz such subtleties do get lost.

I realized that nearly every serious European institution, no matter how conservative, has had some credit crisis losses, but China has been doing OK except for some investments they did only in the last two years or so. Before that, they were so risk-avoiding they would only invest in nuclear-missile-backed investments.

A few years ago, I was under the impression that China was careful not just because they wanted to, but also because they did not trust their own expertise in "high finance". Every Chinese venture into more risky investments was accompanied by an effort to lure ethnic Chinese investors in the West to move to China, which suggested that they did no trust their own judgement, nor that of external advisors.

In hindsight, this makes a lot more sense, and perhaps other countries and funds should have been that wise. But on the other hand, their extreme caution came at the price of very, very low yields.

So I am wondering, if European banks and especially pension funds had taken a more Chinese approach to investing in US, would they have out ahead compared to their current situation?

by GreatZamfir on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:28:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I realized that nearly every serious European institution, no matter how conservative, has had some credit crisis losses, but China has been doing OK except for some investments they did only in the last two years or so.

Some $6 billion or so?


Before that, they were so risk-avoiding they would only invest in nuclear-missile-backed investments.

Yes, US treasuries and US agencies (Freddie and Fannie). Regardless the devaluation of the dollar guaranteed that they would loose money there too.


A few years ago, I was under the impression that China was careful not just because they wanted to, but also because they did not trust their own expertise in "high finance".

They also wanted to retain their peg to the US dollar.

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:53:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Some $6 billion or so?

3% of the entire fund, that loss from 2007 was indeed significant. However, even your linked article supports GreatZamfir's point about very cautious investment -- after burning their finger once (well, twice).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:12:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, devaluation of the dollar is a risk even with treasuries. But they wanted to store their money abroad, and keep their peg, so they had to invest in dollars. After that, they could choose safe havens or more risky efforts, and until a few years ago they did not even consider anything but US treasuries.
by GreatZamfir on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 03:39:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But they wanted to invest their surplus in dollars, not just dollar-denominated cash flows. If you buy shares in General Motors, it's not going to do anything for the exchange rate, because the dollars would still be circulating, right?

- Jake

Tory Bliar for president prison!

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 05:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No, just investing in the US would be enough, unless I am missing something. China wants to run a trade surplus, so instead of accepting import goods as payment for their exports they take treasuries. They could also accept shares in GM as payment, they just chose not to do that.

In all cases, they first buy dollars, which is the step affecting the exchange rate. After that, they can buy goods, treasuries or GM shares with those dollars.

by GreatZamfir on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 07:43:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But if they buy stuff with their dollars, the dollars go back in circulation. All other things being equal, that should lead to a lower value of the dollar relative to other currencies. Sure, they can keep their currency pegged to the dollar, but if the dollar devalues sharply against the €, stuff from - say - Germany would suddenly become much more expensive, which may or may not be desirable.

- Jake

Tory Bliar for president prison!

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It depends on the usefulness, in the new environment, of what Germany eg produces.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 04:17:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course. But in the past, China has pursued quite a lot of trade with Germany, so obviously Germany produces something that China wants. Pricing their private companies entirely out of those imports might not be the greatest idea in the world.

Going forward, it's hard to tell - they might want to do import substitution with some or all of those goods. But I have the impression that the picture is pretty clear so far as the past couple of decades are concerned.

- Jake

Tory Bliar for president prison!

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 06:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree basically, but in the larger picture, if, for instance, Germany had developed better RDI and production facilities for wind turbines, then this would place them in a marketing system where price is only important in the long life cycle of what they are selling.

What I am saying is that, in contrast to the years past, relative price might not be that important a consideration because there is a big difference between quartal and long term planning.

Surely corporate survival strategies will ultimately depend on these long term considerations?

I am not sure that this is so - but if it were, it would be very interesting. I was just in a meeting today that would suggest that it is certainly being thought about.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 07:55:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In support of Sven's argument, all of the four wind power companies now in or entering Arkansas are European, most are Dutch, I believe.  The ability to set up manufacturing in foreign markets can substantially reduce currency risks, as even profit taking can be adjusted according to exchange rates.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 08:16:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To me, the shift from a quartal POV to much longer term might be the biggest positive of this dire situation.

The amortization of investment in vital social assets can often take a generation or more. This has been missing in recent strategic planning. For instance, the results of educational policies can take a generation before becoming apparent.

In the quartal view, the US system of elite education produces results. In the long term it produces yes-people and stagnation.

The ongoing crisis might be seen as a forest fire that will allow new species to flourish...

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Sure, but that's from the point of view of the Germans :-P

If what you sell is so good that everybody will buy it even at twice the price, that's all well and fine for you... But the Chinese companies who are going to buy the stuff might still want the price to be reasonable.

And the Chinese central bank doesn't have to make a profit off its dollar holdings. Chinese industry, OTOH, has to make a profit off its trade with the rest of the world. So in that context, it might make sense for the BoC to take a hit on the returns on their $-assets if that enables China to grow its industrial base faster, by reducing ForEx risk for Chinese companies trading with the €-zone.

- Jake

Tory Bliar for president prison!

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 09:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
All other things being equal, that should lead to a lower value of the dollar relative to other currencies.

Yes, that's right, if the Chinese buy dollars, the dollar goes up, and other people will sell their dollars to invest or buy goods in other currencies, so the dollar will, ceteris paribus as the conomists say, stay roughly at the same level compared other currencies. Except compared to the renminbi, because the Chinese make sure there is a net flow outwards. So if people buy renminbi, the Chinese will simply sell more of them.

The point is that the Chinese are not trying to push up just the dollar, they are trying to keep the renminbi low compared to everything, and they just use the dollar as a target. I don't think there is any way how the Chinese could push up the dollar but not the Euro, given the ease with which capital moves between those.

Your point that this makes German imports more expensive is also correct. This is exactly the point of the whole exercise: to discourage the Chinese industry and public from buying foreign goods, unless there is absolutely no Chinese alternative possible. That's why Germany stands out: it's one of the few countries where the Chinese still buy goods even at elevated prices.

If they were to float their coin, they would buy a lot more in other countries, including even more from Germany. In that case they would be richer in the short run, but it would be harder for their internal industry to compete.
   

by GreatZamfir on Sat Dec 20th, 2008 at 05:15:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
[blockquote]Because loans create money and loaning beyond what regulation allows is creating money illegally, that is, counterfeiting. [/blockquote]

Considering the amount of funny money created by derivatives, I am surprised we did not see very severe inflation.  Although I think we were starting to see significant inflation when the pyramid collapsed.

by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not convinced that derivatives create funny money. Can you explain how entering into a derivatives trade creates money, funny or otherwise?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:25:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My understanding of derivatives is they are bets without either party necessarily owning the underlying assets.  The size of the bets are unlimited and can be extremely leveraged regardless of the value of the underlying assets.

There seems a disconnect between the value of the underlying assets and the leveraged creation of money by the bets.

I have read the value of the world derivatives market is somewhere around a quadrillion dollars.  Which if true is many times greater than the real world economy.  This market would represent creation of substantial amounts of "funny" money basically created out of thin air over the last 10 years or so.

Of course, I am not an economist but that is my laymens understanding.

by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:19:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well now, that won't be a problem if all of those derivative bets net out to zero, will it?  I can see that if they don't net out to zero, some serious money will change hands--more money than is "available"?  This stuff makes my head hurt.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
credit default swap (CDS).


A credit default swap (CDS) is a credit derivative contract between two counterparties. The buyer makes periodic payments (premium leg) to the seller, and in return receives a payoff (protection or default leg) if an underlying financial instrument defaults.[1] CDS contracts have been incorrectly compared with insurance, because the buyer pays a premium and, in return, receives a sum of money if a specified event occurs. However, there are a number of differences between CDS and insurance; the buyer of a CDS does not need to own the underlying security; in fact the buyer does not even have to suffer a loss from the default event.


As an example, imagine that an investor buys a CDS from ABC Bank, where the reference entity is XYZ Corp. The investor will make regular payments to ABC Bank, and if XYZ Corp defaults on its debt (i.e., misses a coupon payment or does not repay it), the investor will receive a one-off payment from ABC Bank and the CDS contract is terminated. If the investor actually owns XYZ Corp debt, the CDS can be thought of as hedging. But investors can also buy CDS contracts referencing XYZ Corp debt, without actually owning any XYZ Corp debt. This may be done for speculative purposes, to bet against the solvency of XYZ Corp in a gamble to make money if it fails, or to hedge investments in other companies whose fortunes are expected to be similar to those of XYZ.


Credit default swaps are by far the most widely traded credit derivative product.[10] The Bank for International Settlements reported the notional amount on outstanding credit default swaps to be $42.6 trillion[11] in June 2007, up from $28.9 trillion in December 2006 ($13.9 trillion in December 2005). By the end of 2007 there were an estimated $45 trillion[12] to $62.2 trillion[13] worth of credit default swap contracts outstanding worldwide.
...
There is no centralised exchange or clearing house for CDS transactions; they are all done over the counter (OTC).
by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. that doesn't create any money in the same way that loans create money.

They create contingent liabilities, but not money.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They create contingent liabilities, but not money.

Yes, they are highly leveraged, contingent liabilities.  If the liabilities are due, the money needed is real money coming from the real economy.  If large numbers of liabilities come due at the same time as with the mortgage bust, then the amounts due can be enormous.

Here is the website with the quadrillion dollar quote.  Not sure how much to trust the numbers...

http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2008/10/the_size_of_der.php

The Invisible One Quadrillion Dollar Equation -- Asymmetric Leverage and Systemic Risk
According to various distinguished sources including the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland -- the central bankers' bank -- the amount of outstanding derivatives worldwide as of December 2007 crossed USD 1.144 Quadrillion, ie, USD 1,144 Trillion. The main categories of the USD 1.144 Quadrillion derivatives market were the following:

  1. Listed credit derivatives stood at USD 548 trillion;

  2. The Over-The-Counter (OTC) derivatives stood in notional or face value at USD 596 trillion and included:

a. Interest Rate Derivatives at about USD 393+ trillion;

b. Credit Default Swaps at about USD 58+ trillion;

c. Foreign Exchange Derivatives at about USD 56+ trillion;

d. Commodity Derivatives at about USD 9 trillion;

e. Equity Linked Derivatives at about USD 8.5 trillion; and

f. Unallocated Derivatives at about USD 71+ trillion.

Quadrillion? That is a number only super computing engineers and astronomers used to use, not economists and bankers! For example, the North star is "just" a couple of quadrillion miles away, ie, a few thousand trillion miles. The new "Roadrunner" supercomputer built by IBM for the US Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory has achieved a peak performance of 1.026 Peta Flop per second -- becoming the first supercomputer ever to reach this milestone. One Quadrillion Floating Point Operations (Flops) per second is 1 Peta Flop/s, ie, 1,000 Trillion Flops per second. It is estimated that all the data found on all the websites and stored on computers across the world totals more than One Exa byte of memory, ie, 1,000 Quadrillion bytes of data.

Whilst outstanding derivatives are notional amounts until they are crystallised, actual exposure is measured by the net credit equivalent. This is normally a lower figure unless many variables plot a locus in the wrong direction simultaneously. This could be because of catastrophic unpredictable events, ie, "Black Swans", such as cascades of bankruptcies and nationalisations, when the net exposure can balloon and become considerably larger or indeed because some extremely dislocating geo-political or geo-physical events take place simultaneously. Also, the notional value becomes real value when either counterparty to the OTC derivative goes bankrupt. This means that no large OTC derivative house can be allowed to go broke without falling into the arms of another. Whatever funds within reason are required to rescue failing international investment banks, deposit banks and financial entities ought to be provided on a case by case basis. This is the asymmetric nature of derivatives and here lies the potential for systemic risk to the global economic system and financial markets if nothing is done.

Let us think about the invisible USD 1.144 quadrillion equation with black swan variables -- ie, 1,144 trillion dollars in terms of outstanding derivatives, global Gross Domestic Product (GDP), real estate, world stock and bond markets coupled with unknown unknowns or "Black Swans". What would be the relative positioning of USD 1.144 quadrillion for outstanding derivatives, ie, what is their scale:

  1. The entire GDP of the US is about USD 14 trillion.

  2. The entire US money supply is also about USD 15 trillion.

  3. The GDP of the entire world is USD 50 trillion. USD 1,144 trillion is 22 times the GDP of the whole world.

  4. The real estate of the entire world is valued at about USD 75 trillion.

  5. The world stock and bond markets are valued at about USD 100 trillion.

  6. The big banks alone own about USD 140 trillion in derivatives.

  7. Bear Stearns had USD 13+ trillion in derivatives and went bankrupt in March. Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Lehman Brothers and AIG have all 'collapsed' because of complex securities and derivatives exposures in September.

  8. The population of the whole planet is about 6 billion people. So the derivatives market alone represents about USD 190,000 per person on the planet.

......the rest of the article at website.
 
by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
1 million = mega = 10^6
1 billion = giga = 10^9
1 trillion = tera = 10^12
1 quadrillion = peta = 10^15
1 sumthingillion = exa = 10^18

I note that the other regular use of peta I've seen is, strangely enough, that natural gas is priced in Australia in dollars per petajoule.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Bank for International Settlements gives the OTC derivatives notional total for June 2008 as $684 tn.

The notional amounts outstanding on derivatives traded on exchanges was $28 tn in March 2008, while the quarterly turnover was $487 tn (we'd need someone who knows the functioning of the futures markets to explain that fully).

When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:28:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I am not sure I trust the numbers in that article I posted.  I went to the Basel bank and tried to replicate the numbers without success.  For some reason my numbers were different than his. But then, I didn't fully understand what I was doing either.

So I don't know.

by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
....The Bank for International Settlements gives the OTC derivatives notional total for June 2008 as $684 tn....

That is actually in the ballpark for the numbers listed in the SiliconValley article.  If the credit derivatives number is correct, then the quadrillion dollar plus sounds about right.

by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"contingent liabilities"

Exactly. Thanks for the correct terminology.  In the event of some contingencies, that could require more "real money" than is available.  Probably why Buffet referred to them as "financial weapons of mass destruction."

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes.  My understanding is there are a whole family of derivative type products which have been created and ballooned in size over the last decade or so.  So when I say derivatives, I am referring to the whole family.
by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This from Wikipedia shows the trend:




When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We need a new word - that money isn't funny, it's terrifying.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
TBG
that money isn't funny, it's terrifying.
Absolutely!  Seems to me the whole derivatives market is in serious need of winding down.  It has been suggested that the insurance industry concept of "insurable interest" be applied.  It is especially troubling to consider that those with great fortunes can buy derivative contracts involving defaults by mid sized countries or even large institutions and then use other of their assets to trigger such a default.  Rather like buying a life insurance policy on someone before you put out a "hit" contract on him, which is what "insurable interest" should preclude.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 08:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Wow!

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Looks like the real growth in derivatives started in June 2001 and just ballooned.
by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's hard to tell from the figure as it is where it started. It's not obvious whether the pre-01 tail is the tail of an exponential distribution, or it is some kind of background.

Might be funny to play a little with the axes and some log-scales, though.

- Jake

Tory Bliar for president prison!

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 01:30:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But I don't think those bets create money in the same way that a bank loan creates money.

If we bet one Euro on a coin toss, no money is created. We simply toss a coin and transfer an existing Euro between us in the appropriate direction.

If I am a bank and I loan you a Euro, 97 cents of that Euro are newly created money that didn't exist before. As you repay the loan, that loan-created money ceases to exist.

That the notional value of all derivatives is so huge just means that people have entered into too many bets. But that doesn't mean that money has been created in that notional amount.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, who is going to pay all those bets?

Say, back in 2004 or 2005 I entered in a (say 5 year) CDS agreement with you. Not owning any of these debts myself I bet that in 2009 or 2010 - for example - GM, Chrysler (Cerberus), Fannie or Freddie Mac, AIG or Lehman Brothers etc. won´t pay its debts?

I´ll pay you $500,000 per year and in case anyone of them defaulted (according to the fine print) you´ll own me $10 million?

The fine print also involves going into government receivership. Certainly true for Fannie and Freddie Mac by now. I invested (2004-2008) maybe $2 million, you now own me $10 million!

The problem seems to be that these CDS contracts weren´t regulated at all. And nobody back in 2004 or 2005 expected a credit crunch just 1-2 years later. They were OTC (Over-The-Counter) contracts.
Nobody regulated them, nobody oversaw them.

So I suspect that these CDS aren´t "neutral", we have to expect that they are heavily weighted against at least some companies?
Wasn´t that the problem for AIG?

by Detlef (Detlef1961_at_yahoo_dot_de) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Say I offer you a bet.

You pay me €100 now and I pay you €1M on some event of probability 1/10,000.

Would you take the bet?

And if you knew I couldn't pay it, would you take it?

And suppose you didn't know better and you still took it and I lost and I couldn't pay? What would happen? Would it be the end of the world?

And at which point in this game is money created?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
.....And at which point in this game is money created?....

I don't think money is ever created.  Debts are created under certain conditions.  But the debts can be enormous.  

So you are right.  The derivatives are not creating money or inflation but potential debts.   Under black swan conditions, the debts could be so enormous that repayment is impossible.  Which would then lead to potention cascading bankruptcies throughout the financial system....if all is so intertwined as some state.  Buffetts financial WMD's.

by Jagger on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:32:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Money is created when it appears on balance sheets and is included in audits.

Money which is hidden from balance sheets and audits can still exist as long as there's some way to convert it into real goods.

The awful toxic horror of money is that somehow these debts become illusory assets which exist for exactly as long as people believe in them.

When that confidence disappears, so does the value.

The only way to avoid a manic depressive economy is to ground value units in items with real physical value - not gold or silver, because their value is mostly still symbolic, but in the products of the ecosystem and in energy flows.

It's impossible to have a viable, stable economy when no one knows how much units of exchange are really worth, or when currency is subject to insane cycles of emotional and psychological excess.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The awful toxic horror of money is that somehow these debts become illusory assets which exist for exactly as long as people believe in them.

And the real problem is that they may then be accepted as collateral for loans.

This is like what happened with subprime. A NINJA-mortgage salesman comes to an unemployed black man sitting in a porch in rural Alabama and asks him "would you like to own this house before it falls over?" and the man says "sure" so he gets a mortgage he will almost certainly end up defaulting on. But now he's a homeowner! So next time he goes to the bank they ask him "are you a homeowner?" and he ways "yes" and they offer him "how would you like to have a credit card?", so he gets a credit card. And so on.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 19th, 2008 at 04:43:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I read this in my mailbox yesterday morning and I thought to myself (I don't think as eloquently as you), "What Bullshit."

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:20:33 AM EST
thats all the elloquence necessary, succinct and to the point.

I'm tired of this backslapping, aint humanity great BS, we're a virus with shoes Bill Hicks
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 07:23:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not being an economist I was also a bit on the side of the bullshaite (I also subscribe to the RGE monitor).
But, if the bulletin in right (only time will tell), maybe it will be up to us to review or assumptions...

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell
by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:49:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll be very happy to be wrong. My income is in dollars and my expenses are in euros.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP (rafifoon@yahoo.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:46:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To mangle the Keynes quote: "The markets can stay irrational longer than you expect."
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 08:39:27 AM EST
I have what I call the square wave theory of pricing (commodities, stocks, money, real estate, etc.)

A square wave is a function which moves along at a fixed value for awhile then suddenly switches to another before switching back in a repeating cycle.

In sound this makes a harsh buzzing noise.

In the real world signals can't jump instantaneously  from one value to the other so there is a bit of jitter before the new value settles down.

A picture will illustrate:

According to my theory when we are seeing rapid fluctuations in price it means that there is soon to be a sudden jump to the new state. In human terms in means there is a fundamental shift taking place in the social and/or economic structure of society and people haven't yet adapted to the new reality.

In addition to the currency fluctuations we have seen the rapid changes in oil prices, interest rates and, of course, stock prices.

What the new "reality" will look like is anyone's guess. I offered my 2 cents on how to influence the outcome in my latest essay.

The future is not foreordained, but letting things drift is never the best idea.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:37:55 AM EST
You can get that from a diffusion process in a double-well potential. The large jumps are the classical analogue of quantum tunnelling between the two wells.

Now imagine an adiabatically changing potential, which sometimes has only one well but may develop secondary wells and a cusp catastrophe.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In English, please!

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You mean with charts and formulas? :-P

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
How about language a non-(physics/math) wiz could understand?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can come up with a mean-reverting stochastic model which might superficially replicate the periods of "stable" prices. This could be extended to a model in which there are two nearby "stable" prices, in which case the stochastic model would look superficially similar to what rdf posted. You could then imagine that the position of the "stable" prices and their relative stabllity would change slowly with time. This would entail that after jumping back and forth the "square wave" would not return exactly to the previous "stable" level. Finally, you could model a the emergence of a new regime. Initially you would have just a single stable price but then a second stable point would develop and gradually become dominant. For the period where neither of the two points is dominant you would observe jumps back and forth in rdf's square wave fashion. Eventually the new regime would take over.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:17:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, of course.  How simple.  What was I thinking?  What?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Okay, answer me this. Do you understand rdf's top-level comment, fully?

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Doubt it.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So maybe you can start by enumerating the bits (jargon or full sentences, or charts) of his comment you don't understand and we'll go from there. Eventually we might get to my comment.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:42:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Sh*t, I'm an old f*ck.  By the time we get there, my corpse will be toasting in a cremation oven.  What a warm, cozy thought.

Thanks anyway.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:00:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My point is, if you understood rdf you would be able to ask me more than "Wud!!??"

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Correct.

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!
by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
When chaging between 2 stable states, there is chaos during the change.

Previous stable state: Anglo-disease (30 years of it)
Now: Chaos (the chaos can still increase from our current point, or decrease...)
Sometime in the future: another stable state (insert your favourite forecast of the future here).


Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way one can only apply this to peak oil. We are in chaos space now.

Of course, as to peak oil we can also think that the model(s) (in the short-medium term) are fcking wrong: as most models have an implicit assumption of inifite demannd (or demand to the level of maximum production).

If demand falls dramatically then there might not be peak oil after all (especially if, in the mean time, or dear leaders are prescient enough to take this oppportunity to convert our economies from black to green)

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:55:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
By the way one can only apply this to peak oil.

Can you explain this?

If that is the case, the "old state" cannot be simply described as "Anglo Disease".

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean the wave model. Only the model and not the instance. In this case:

Old state: low prices
Chaos: The current ups and downs
New state: high prices

But again, peak oil might be wrong if demand goes down and there is a massive switch from black to green (energy) before demand rises again.

Of all forms of caution, caution in love is perhaps the most fatal to true happiness - Bertrand Russell

by tiagoantao (put_my_login_here <> gmail com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:19:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There may be more than two states.

There's also no guarantee of stability. Because in fact we haven't really had economic stability for the last thirty years - far from it.

What we've had is a relatively stable political system which has been implemented and sustained using economic jargon as a rhetorical narrative device.

Expecting that economic jargon - which is made of sandcastles floating on bullshit, as JK Galbraith has almost pointed out - to provide an insight into any stable political system in the future might possibly be optimistic.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:12:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is way too complicated. You can get that type of path from a Levy Flight. Such processes are sometimes used to model foraging behaviour of animals (which has a nice amount of Anschaulichkeit to it).

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
by martingale on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What the new "reality" will look like is anyone's guess.

this new "reality" is not going to favor "the common man"?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Depends on what kind of dune buggy, shoulder pads, and chains the "common man" has.
by Zwackus on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course, were it a digital signal, all the information could still be recovered, even if the wave was attenuated to, say, 0.2. ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 09:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is that the same with any mobile phone company? ;-)

I'm tired of this backslapping, aint humanity great BS, we're a virus with shoes Bill Hicks
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bad metaphor. You can design an analogue system which can handle square waves accurately. You only get distortion and ringing in certain circumstances.

In a digital system you wouldn't get any signal at all at an attenuation of 0.2 because that would be too small to switch bits.

It's more likely that there's a chaotic instability happening which may - or may not - lead to a dramatic state change.

But unlike chaotic processes in nature, economies don't just happen. They're engineered to work in a certain way for the benefit of certain people.

Nothing in economics is inevitable or out of human hands. The problem is making sure it's the right human hands doing the engineering.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 10:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem is making sure it's the right human hands doing the engineering.

Why do I get the feeling it's the Phil Graham/Grover Norquist types who will be the "human hands"?

I love the smell of roast chicken in the morning!

by THE Twank (yatta blah blah @ blah.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
To go with the control theory metaphor mentioned in a previous post, this is the response of a feedback loop with too high a controller gain.
by tjbuff (timhess@adelphia.net) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:23:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to my theory when we are seeing rapid fluctuations in price it means that there is soon to be a sudden jump to the new state.
But what you are showing is under-damped oscillation of a step function, as in an electronic system.  Were the period longer, this would turn into a straight line until the next "step."  This would be described as a Chebychiev Function, as opposed to an over-damped or critically damped Butterworth Function.  One question would have to do with the nature of the damping---(not the regulatory environment, surely!)

The more fundamental problem is that the oscillation damps out after the step.  What you are showing is the opposite of what you are describing.  Reverse the arrow of time on your graph and you would be showing what you are describing.  Perhaps Mig could find an anology in quantum theory for such a scheme.  It is far beyond me, but I did spend a lot of time looking at deformed square waves when I was designing audio circuits back in the 70s.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:07:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You guys all sound like electrical engineers imagining that you could somehow filter the "noise" out of market price data and you would end up with a "clean" signal which still would have all of these underdamped oscillating features around an "underlying" square-wave "true price" or whatever.

To me, the noise is the signal in financial price series, and if you stripped it out you'd be left with the naked square wave.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I recognized the function because of my background.  The question I left un-asked is how a theory could be constructed that could relate the function to the economic phenomena it is proposed to describe.  What seemed to me to be the most important part of the comment was that the oscillations damped out afterthe step transition, instead of building up before the transition, as proposed in the theory, and to suggest a model that would conform to the proposed theory by reversing the arrow of time from that shown in the graph.  A really satisfying theory would account for that reversal as well.   The classical economists did too much damage with inappropriate borrowing of math functions from physics for me to want to repeat that!

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 04:16:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I said, I don't think it's a helpful or accurate metaphor. Just because you can design analogue circuits that can produce clean square waves doesn't mean you want an economy that does the same, or that square wave oscillations have anything at all to do with real economies.

Real economies are based on politics, not maths. You can't design signal flows until you specify social outcomes, and the big problem we have at the moment - and have had for decades now - is that the people who design the outcomes have been utterly dishonest and manipulative about what they've been trying to achieve.

At best they've been dishonest with themselves, and at worst they've simply been acting criminally.

If you want to model the economy accurately, you don't need square waves, you need special prosecutors.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Your last line is an instant classic.

Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Long term history:



*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM EST
Two notes.

...The four horseman of the carry trade apocalypse - Deleveraging, Risk Aversion, Growth Differentials and the Dollar's Reserve Currency Status...

...the Currency Reserve argument is one until it isn't...

I'd say it is already crumbling. Yet another indication, which I quoted in the Salon, too:

Bloomberg.com: Currencies

Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Ecuador's default on $3.9 billion of international bonds means it's only a matter of time before the country drops the U.S. dollar as its currency, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. says.

Ecuador's use of the dollar gives President Rafael Correa no outlet for providing credit to the economy as access to foreign financing dries up and revenue from sales of oil, the nation's biggest export, tumbles. Correa, a critic of so-called dollarization, also may use the default as an excuse to abandon the policy, said Alberto Ramos, a Latin America economist with Goldman Sachs in New York.

European sovereign bonds offer an alternative but inferior safe haven because of the European bond market's fragmentation and exposure to emerging Europe.

(My emphasis.) This newsletter article may have been written by Roubini himself -- who may be under the impression of his stay in Hungary just when the financial crisis hit there a month ago. But, I think he is overestimating that (existing) risk.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST
Didn't people see how quickly and without hesitation the ECB came to the help of Hungary with large facilities? Outsiders (read non-continentals, aka English speaking people) just keep on underestimating the political component of the EU, and the very strong solidarity it means even if there is no short term economic case for it

The EU is not an economic or financial union, but that passes right over the heads of the analysts in London or NY.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 01:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Exactly. The EU is about solidarity, a concept these people can't really seem to fit into their heads.

Now, it's not just solidarity for its own sake, because deep down somewhere everyone knows that without solidarity in Europe we will eventually lose peace in Europe, and no one wants to go back to that. At all.

That's what the Union is all about.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 01:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
To the contrary, Roubini did see that, but he also saw that the credit risks here were in large part that of West European companies. That's what I mean by him overestimating the risks. I'll see if I can dig up an interview with Roubini made at the time.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 01:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That's whatwhere I mean by him overestimating the risks.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I found it -- turns out it was in English on Forbes rather than the interview with Intex.hu. Here is the part on the ECB's help to Hungary:

A Goulash Meltdown? - Forbes.com

Second, the government has access to 5 billion euros that were made available by the European Central Bank in a swap operation. The willingness of the ECB to "bail out" a country that is not yet a member of the Euro zone is significant, and points to the concerns European Monetary Union members now have about the disruptive effects of a crisis in Hungary.

Also, the ECB liquidity support, unlike the conditional International Monetary Fund loans, comes without any strings attached. The additional issues caused by the ECB action, however, are important: If the financial pressures intensify and 5 billion euros is not enough, would the ECB lend more? Will the ECB do similar swaps with other emerging European economies that are likely candidates, in the next few years, for EMU membership? Should Hungary use this additional international liquidity to prevent a further depreciation of its currency, or should it save this ammunition in case things get worse?

Further, on the foreign ownership connection:

Since the Hungarian operations of foreign banks are profitable, it should not be in their interests to roll off their exposure to Hungary. On the other hand, many European banks have their own domestic stresses, given the financial turmoil in the Euro zone, and their need to deleverage and reduce risk exposure is leading to destabilizing pro-cyclical behavior toward their emerging Europe subsidiaries. This pro-cyclicality of the credit behavior of foreign banks in emerging markets is a well-known phenomenon in the empirical academic literature on this subject.

(I won't comment any of this now, but if you read all of that article, I note that even Roubini strikes me as more a conventional free-marketer.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 02:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The willingness of the ECB to "bail out" a country that is not yet a member of the Euro zone is significant, and points to the concerns European Monetary Union members now have about the disruptive effects of a crisis in Hungary.

He sees it as a defensive move to protect the eurozone (ie a self-interested decision) rather a move to actually help Hungary. That's what I mean by seeing it through a purely economic lense.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:22:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, you've got that, but you have to give he saw how quickly and without hesitation the ECB came to the help of Hungary with large facilities, and that there was a short term economic case for it...

More to the point, what do you think of his claim that the risk of a domino effect across the new EU members could overwhelm the ECB's resources? (I think he is mistaken about the size of the default risk, but wqonder what's your take.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The size of the economies of the periphery is too small to have an impact on the eurozone.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Uhm... the domino effect across the periphery Roubini envisions. The Eurozone is not a domino in this, "just" something affected. What do you mean 'not having an impact'? There is always an impact, the question is its size and nature. (Note that trade with the new members is quite significant since 2005, expecially for Germany.) For our purposes, the question is: how much higher an emergency credit liquidity package can the ECB assemble than the €5 billion put together for Hungary only? And how could the need to put together a say €150 billion package affect its other activities?

(My take is that even Hungary is/was not in danger of exhausting this cushion, much less the rest of the new members, but that may not be your take or from where you approach this question.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 06:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
(...English speaking people) just keep on underestimating the political component of the EU, and the very strong solidarity it means...)
Yes!  And the political component of political-economy will remained banned until these clowns have been driven from positions of influence.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer at eurotrib.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Apparently my picture (not my point) brought out the geek in a lot of people.

Here's a better illustration than the prior one I found:

Notice that the fluctuations happen shortly before and after the sudden change.

The comment above which likened this period to "chaos" got it exactly right.(The technical term for the wiggles is "ringing", by analogy to what happens after you strike a bell.)

What I claim is that there is really only one underlying cause to the present confusion - overpopulation.

The population has doubled in the past 40 years. This is an unprecedented event both in the quickness of the rise and in the magnitude (3 billion additional people).

This has put enormous strains on our social system. We have resource shortages including water, land and food in additional to the usual raw materials. This has led to a semi-permanent state of anarchy is many parts of the world, especially Africa. Even in those areas (say Cambodia) which only have one horrific event the "peace" which follows is never easy. The conflicts remain.

Even "civilized" places like the Balkans and Greece are continually unstable.

The international finance system which replaced the gold standard was based upon an understanding that the various economies would tend to go along as they typically did. Instead we have seen a steady stream of failures, such as the currency crises in South East Asia in the 1990's, etc.

Under such unstable conditions people try to adopt policies which worked in the past, hence the rise in the price of gold, the rush to buy property and the flight to US treasuries.

Unfortunately there is no such thing as "real" value. Gold, if restricted to vital industrial uses, would be needed at a rate that is only about 20% of current consumption. Property values depend upon the surrounding conditions, which is why places like Detroit are now real estate disasters.

Now one of the last safe havens, US notes, has come under question. With a nominal interest rate of zero and a negative real rate investors are fleeing and looking for safety and returns elsewhere. The result is a long overdue revaluation of the US currency.

I've been predicting for a long time that the US would "solve" its government debt problem by creating inflation. I'm still predicting it, it's just taking a little long to arrive. Perhaps the Bushies have been holding back the tide until they leave office so that the devaluation of the currency can be blamed on the next administration.

This is what happened in the 1970's. LBJ lost a war without paying for it and left the bill to those who came after. The parallels are there for anyone who wants to look.

There were no good places to put one's money at the time and it seems as if that may be true this time as well. The rich bought "stuff" as a hedge then, but even the luxury goods market (antiques and fine art) is struggling now.

Perhaps if a few more billionaires lose their fortunes we will see some actual attempts at reform.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

by rdf (robert.feinman@gmail.com) on Thu Dec 18th, 2008 at 03:58:47 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]