Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis |
Giant Sucking Sound; Demand for Credit in Europe Collapses; Pritchard Misses the Boat Posted: 28 Apr 2012 06:40 PM PDT In a report on fixed income, David Owen, Chief European Financial Economist at Jefferies, notes that demand for credit in Europe has plunged. Owen asks Is it the supply or demand for credit that matters? 25 April 2012Europe Faces Japan Syndrome In reference to the above chart, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at The Telegraph says Europe faces Japan syndrome as credit demand implodes Europe (minus Germany) looks more like post-bubble Japan each month.Live with the Consequences Indeed Pritchard conveniently ignores the fact that Japan is struggling right now to "live with the consequences" of numerous misguided monetary and fiscal stimulus efforts over 20 years. Japan has debt-to-GDP exceeding 200% and little to show for it. And Japan now has to live with the consequences of numerous misguided QE and stimulus proposals. Pritchard apparently wants more QE for Europe as if that would increase demand for credit. Note that two rounds of QE did not increase the demand for credit in the US as per my post The Real Consumer Credit Story: Virtually No Recovery in Revolving Credit, No Recovery in Non-Revolving Credit. Moreover, QE did not succeed in increasing the demand for credit in Japan over 20 years. So pray tell why would QE increase the demand for credit in Europe? More importantly, even if it did, would that be a good thing? European banks are already over-leveraged and under-capitalized so how the hell is providing cheap credit going to possibly do anything good? Would 0% interest rates help when they did not help Japan? Pritchard Misses the Boat Clearly Pritchard missed the boat on QE as well as the desirability of attempting to cram more credit down banks' throats when banks are over-leveraged and under-capitalized. Everyone wants to do something "but not now". While there is immense merit to not hiking taxes in a recession as Brussels forced on Greece, Spain, and Portugal, work rule and pension changes are badly needed. Pritchard's idea of raising capital instead of selling assets seems reasonable enough. However, nothing stops banks from doing that, at least in theory. Is practice another matter? Giant Sucking Sound William Wright discusses Tier-1 Capital requirements in A rough guide to surviving the great deleveraging of 2012 As if Basel III weren't enough of a headache, big European banks face a deadline of June 30 from the European Banking Authority to increase their core Tier-1 capital ratios to 9%, equivalent to raising €115bn in equity.Is That All Bad News? Wright concludes that is not all bad news. I agree, but for some different reasons. First Wright ... The Promised LandBanks Should Be Banks, Not Hedge Funds I do not believe that bigger is better and I am sick of the notion "too big to fail". Indeed, it most often means two things:
However, I do believe that banks should be banks, not hedge funds. To the extent that Basel III forces banks to shed trading activities and other non-tradition activities that banks now find themselves in, I view that as a good thing. I certainly agree with Wright regarding the need for "a realistic price for risk and credit", but "less competition" is certainly not the essence of well-formed free markets. My conclusion is that Wright does not understand the Fed's role in the creation of this mess or sound Austrian economic principles needed to fix it. We will indeed see a "a realistic price for risk and credit" if and only if we get rid of the Fed and end fractional reserve lending. Bigger banks are not the answer. By the way, Wright is not quite correct when he says "equity markets all but closed to banks". Let's phrase it properly: "equity markets all but closed to banks, on terms that banks want". Banks do not want shareholder dilution that comes with raising equity now. Bondholders do not want to take a hit either. Both should have happened already, but Bush, Obama, Congress, and the Fed acted in unison to prevent what desperately needed to happen. If Not Now, When? Pritchard thinks the time to raise Tier-1 Capital requirements is not now. OK When is it? 10 years from now or will Spain, Greece, and Italy still be too fragile? Japan shows the folly of waiting and depending on QE and fiscal stimulus to spawn inflation. Japan's Four-Pronged Approach
Did Japan succeed? In the case of Europe, there is also this "not-so-little" problem that Pritchard is extremely aware of yet mysteriously avoids every time he rails about the ECB not doing enough. I am obviously talking about the Euro. The LTRO increased leverage and risk on Spanish and Italian banks. QE is useless, something Pritchard should see. Reducing interest rates will shift imbalances to other countries, and may send oil and food prices higher, but it sure will not increase lending. Pritchard says "The ECB needs to do its own work, with proper energy." What "work" is that? Does any "work" make any sense? The first irony is Pritchard compares Europe to Japan, while essentially proposing the same four-pronged policy of failure followed by Japan. The second irony of Pritchard's column is that if Basel III moves forward the date of the inevitable breakup of the eurozone, that would be a good thing. A eurozone breakup would place Europe on a faster pace of ending the very "Japan Syndrome" that Pritchard rails against. Proper Energy Not only do I want to raise tier-1 capital requirements, I want to see a 100% gold-backed dollar, the end of fractional reserve lending, and the end of duration-mismatched lending (e.g. selling 5-year CDs and making mortgage loans for 30 years). Finally, lending of money that is supposed to be available on demand is fraudulent and must be stopped. I would be more than willing to phase those ideas in, but the time to start is now, not 10 years from now, under the misguided notion things will be better if only banks would lend more. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
Posted: 28 Apr 2012 08:52 AM PDT Given major delays in retirement plans, 80 is the new 65 says CNN Money. A quarter of middle-class Americans are now so pessimistic about their savings that they are planning to delay retirement until they are at least 80 years old -- two years longer than the average person is even expected to live.Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) reports Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings Executive Summary Points
What About the Expected Retirement of Nuclear Power Plants? I picked up links to the above articles in a surprising place. Dawn Stover, writing for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists compared the retirement of workers to the "The new retirement" for nuclear power plants Today, only 14 percent of Americans age 25 and older are confident that they will have enough money to retire comfortably, according to a recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). Another recent survey, by Wells Fargo, reported that a quarter of middle-class Americans now plan to postpone retirement until they are at least 80 years old -- longer than many of them are expected to live. For Americans facing an uncertain financial future, 80 is the new 65.Crazy to Plan Retirement Past Life Expectancy? Dawn says "Is it crazy for someone to delay his retirement past the age he can expect to live". Sorry Dawn, that's not crazy at all. If you have insufficient money, you need to work. Some want to work because they like what they are doing. If you are seeking crazy, try these:
Economic Craziness If you are looking for more craziness, Dawn wants a "carbon tax to lift job prospects". Here is another crazy idea: Dawn talks of "forcing people to save more and protect retirement savings from the vagaries of the financial markets". Yikes! Nuclear Craziness One point I happen to agree with Dawn on. It's crazy to issue "40-year licenses for a process that creates a radioactive waste problem lasting tens of thousands of years" and have no plans for anything but the first 40 years. Mike "Mish" Shedlock http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com Click Here To Scroll Thru My Recent Post List |
You are subscribed to email updates from Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 |