« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Financial Crisis Goes Global

And So Does The Management Of It

The news background is relatively benign this morning. Stock markets in Asia and Europe are stronger, after five days of relentless and at times violent selling. Credit markets are just as dysfunctional as ever, but not much worse.

There are several things to watch over the next several days: corporate earnings, global countermeasures to the crisis, and further aggressive actions by the Fed and Treasury.

The biggest weapon that the world has for combating the crisis is the balance sheet of the United States, and there were signs yesterday that the Treasury is starting to use it aggressively. That raises questions about who will be in charge of this when Henry Paulson leaves office in January.


It’s the start of third-quarter earnings reports in the United States, and so far results have been mixed. The Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) gave a putrid report the other day, but yesterday IBM’s report wasn’t bad.

General Electric reports tomorrow, and that one will be interesting because about half of GE is actually a global financial business. Late last month, GE held an interim call in which they warned that results from GE Capital would be disappointing because of the credit market disruptions, and also because of weakness in US consumer finance.

All these reports contain clues to the most important aspect of the global financial crisis, which is what effect it will have on the actual consumer and industrial economy.

We’ve been lucky in our financial crises over the last few decades. Most of them have scared a lot of insiders, generated some arcane but scary headlines, and done not much else.

This time will be different. The weakness in housing prices has led to widespread insolvency within the financial industry, which in turn has sharply diminished the availability of credit. This situation has been simmering for more than a year, but three weeks ago it erupted into industrial economy in the form of a severe squeeze in short-term credit for businesses.

We’re very likely to find that the global economy slammed on the brakes hard, last month. This will show up in a small way in this quarter’s earnings reports, but the reports we’ll see in early January will really show the effects. Stock markets are already behaving as if the worst-case scenario will become a reality.

Yesterday’s big news was a cut in policy interest rates, coordinated across a set of the world’s central banks, including the Fed, the ECB, the Swiss National Bank, the Bank of Canada, the Bank of Japan, even the People’s Bank of China.

Global responses will continue, because this crisis is truly global. Some of the worst disorders in the financial industry are yet to come, and many will center in Europe. The last dominoes have yet to fall.

The thing to note about all this is that leadership for managing the crisis will need to come from the United States. Last weekend, there was a widely-watched meeting of finance ministers in Europe. They produced nothing but hot air, and that spooked markets mightily.

The response of US policy makers has inspired questions about whether the weapons in their arsenal are equal to the task, but no questions at all about whether they are acting aggressively enough.

As the management of the crisis becomes global, it will be up to leadership in the Fed and the Treasury to get everyone on the same page around the world and move in the same direction.

Key to any solution will be the balance sheet of the United States. Simply put, this is the ability of the Treasury to borrow enormous amounts of very stable capital at low interest rates from the rest of the world.

The $700 billion that Treasury is now authorized to spend on crisis remediation is exactly what I’m talking about. This is capital that can be piped from the world’s largest investors, including foreign central banks, onto the balance sheets of financial institutions.

I have to say that, although the current leadership of the Treasury and the Fed have come in for a lot of criticism, much of it justified, they’ve done a fine job of stepping up and meeting this crisis head-on.

They have made a lot of mistakes. In particular, there’s a good case that Lehman Brothers should not have been allowed to hit the ground with a thud, but rather should have been killed cleanly as Bear Stearns was. That might have avoided the whole acute solvency crisis we find ourselves in. But that’s a question that will be answered by future historians.

And everyone from President Bush to Secretary Paulson to the leadership in Congress did an abysmal job of explaining to the public what the TARP legislation was actually all about. They allowed everyone to immediately form the impression that $700 billion was being transferred from the pockets of poor and middle-class people right into the Swiss bank accounts of a raft of rich white men on Wall Street.

And then they did nothing whatsoever to counteract that impression. This episode is going to be the textbook case for how not to handle the public-relations aspects of a major crisis.

Ben Bernanke will be the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board into 2010. That’s a good thing. But Hank Paulson will be leaving his job in January.

Who fills his shoes? Many on Wall Street, including myself, would like Paulson to stay in the job for a few more months to finish the work he started, and keep things going on an even keel.

But it’s no exaggeration to say that Paulson has few friends in Congress. He won’t be asked back. And one of the things they don’t like about him, his reliance on putting former associates from Goldman Sachs into key positions, is part of what’s keeping the crisis management steady.

We’re going to get a large new cast of characters at Treasury in January, like it or not. Who is Obama likely to put into the top job? Speculation has centered around New York Fed President Tim Geithner, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin. Given a choice, my pick is Geithner.

For McCain’s part, he’s talking about a variety of CEOs, including Meg Whitman, formerly of eBay. None of those choices inspire me, but he also could give the nod to Geithner or Summers.

One crucial thing about the next several years is that economic policy must be run by people who are committed to free markets. This is true of the people running things now. We’ve created more socialism in the last six months than at nearly any other time in history except for the New Deal.

The extraordinary structures put in place to manage this crisis, including the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, must be unwound immediately after the crisis ends.

We’ll be watching whoever becomes President very closely to ensure that his economic policy team is fully committed to free-market capitalism and a rapid return to normal markets.

Keep in mind that whoever comes in to run Treasury, and the people that he or she brings with in, will be called upon to manage not just US economic policy, but also a historic global crisis. This is one of those times when the quality of the leadership we choose will make all the difference in the world.

To RedState’s cherished and valued readership: I wish all of you a peaceful and contemplative Yom Kippur.

-Francis Cianfrocca

COMMENTS

  • enrique

    Blackhedd, thanks for the update. I certainly don’t share your optimism about the liklihood of handing over all of these powers to the federal government and seeing them hand them back. I see all of the actions by the Fed and Treasury to be a partial replay so far of the depressionary policies in the 20s.

    I realize things aren’t that bad yet and hopefully they won’t get there. But it is my belief that we are deepening the inevitable market adjustment by trying to prevent an economic slowdown. The shift away from the malinvestments has to occur but by distorting the market forces we are creating even more problems.

    I think this whole problem is an excellent example of the law of unintended consequences as just about every action the government or Fed makes leads to some outcome that leads to malinvestment requiring further intervention. I believe it was Hayek who said there can’t be an omniscient planner to know all market conditions at any one time so the only way to let the market work is by getting out of the way.

    Finally, I believe that many of the prescriptions you have explained and tacitly supported (as a great many other Republicans as well) are extremely dangerous to liberty. I know the intentions are not such but history has shown time and again that powers granted to central governments are rarely, if ever, returned to the people.

    I’m sure we will find people who look back at the measures taken and wonder how we could have possibly gotten to the point we are today. I wonder after the US nationalizes the banking industry over the next few weeks what the next step is? Will it be price and wage controls?

    I also wonder if at some point the world says “no thanks” to buying our debt which we obviously will never be able to pay back? If that happens, then it’s game over USA and we would be bankrupt and suddenly very poor.

  • Old_Crow

    to comprehend the current financial crisis as well as the backbone necessary to implement ‘tough’ policy decisions.

    Francis, I thank you for your time and insight.

    • blackhedd

      During his academic career, Ben Bernanke has written some of the most insightful papers on the policy errors of the 1930-1933 period, when banking crises became economic crises. That’s the good news, because he and his colleagues are doing everything just about the opposite as was done in the Thirties.

      As you say, however, the unintended consequences are unknown and certain to be deleterious, at least to some extent.

      I fully appreciate the risk to freedom. I’m not frightened about it, as long as the people currently running the show stay where they are. I would seriously worry about it, depending on who the next President brings in.

      A counterexample to your point that government power once attained is never relinquished, would be the RTC. When it finished its work, it wound itself down and disappeared. There’s no fundamental reason that can’t happen again.

      Another counterexample is how Sweden handled their banking crisis in 1994. They nationalized almost every one of the country’s banks by buying preferred stock from them with public money. About two years later, almost all of the nationalized banks had been successfully re-privatized.

      The essence of the problem we have to solve today is insolvency. This was also a critical problem in 1931 and 1932. Unlike then, we now have the equipment to add capital to the financial system quickly. That’s what has to happen.

      About the borrowing power of the US: it continues unabated. I think your fears are unfounded. And in this time of crisis, the rest of the world understands that they need us to pull through, and they’re looking to us for leadership. The power to borrow will be there.

      Of course, if we get a Democratic President who starts spending money like a drunken sailor on national health care and an alternative-fuels Apollo program, all bets are off.

  • kowalski

    Like a residence hall. It suits the Associate Professor, like his campaign:

    Obama’s campaign schedule is fuller, more hectic and seemingly improvisational. The Obama aides who deal with the national reporters on the campaign plane are often overwhelmed, overworked and un-informed about where, when, why or how the candidate is moving about.

    The national headquarters in Chicago airily dismisses complaints from journalists wondering why a schedule cannot be printed up or at least e-mailed in time to make coverage plans. Nor is there much sympathy for those of us who report for a newscast that airs in the early evening hours.

    The McCain campaign plane is better than Obama’s, which is cramped, uncomfortable and smells terrible most of the time. Somehow the McCain folks manage to keep their charter clean, even where the press is seated.

    That’s the guy who the Democrats want running the show.

    • kowalski

      His plane stinks, his people are confused and don’t know what they’re doing, and the home office couldn’t give a fig. That’s what happens when you ram a junior-leaguer into the top tier and give them a ton of money to spend. People counting on Obama to have a steady hand in the first chaotic few months of any putative administration, a tough enough time for the best-organized and most seasoned, had better have an alternate plan. Like moving to Fiji.

  • kowalski

    Since it only seems fitting this morning, I agree with your assessment:

    And everyone from President Bush to Secretary Paulson to the leadership in Congress did an abysmal job of explaining to the public what the TARP legislation was actually all about. They allowed everyone to immediately form the impression that $700 billion was being transferred from the pockets of poor and middle-class people right into the Swiss bank accounts of a raft of rich white men on Wall Street.

    Unfortunately this is also par for the course with this President. His most memorable sound-bite on the crisis so far has been his glib and tone-deaf summation: “Wall Street got drunk. It got drunk and now it’s got a hangover.”

    Then he tried to pivot on that poorly-considered comment and convince the United States and the world that it was facing a crisis of grave seriousness demanding immediate, concerted, far-reaching and global action.

    I’ve waited eight years for the President to finally kick his habit of making mincemeat of himself because he cannot match his words to the seriousness of the tasks placed before him by the events of history. I’ve finally come to realize that it just isn’t going to happen.

    • Strelnikov

      It portends that not much will get done!

      Disorganization, confusion, and ignorance among his minions all work in our favor, either short-term right now, or, if the American populace gets really stupid and elects him, long-term for a 2010/2012 comeback.

      • kowalski

        I wish I didn’t have to bet my future on the continued incompetence of a person who shouldn’t be there in the first place.

        • Strelnikov

          …I have to find that silk lining inside the sow’s ear somehow!

          Was that a pig joke? :}

  • wsjreader

    Blackhedd,

    Can you explain why the overnight LIBOR is higher than 1-month & 3-month LIBOR. This does not make any sense at all under normal circumstances. Does this mean the 1-month & 3-month markets are virtually non-exsistent and you can’t really borrow money on those quoted rates? or does it mean market indicate that in 1-month & 3-month, the rates will eventually come down?

    I’m confused on this.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/26905693

    LIBOR OverNight5.09381.1563
    LIBOR 1 Month4.51250.3725
    LIBOR 3 Month4.750.43

  • The_Gadfly

    And that’s the part I’m the most concerned about. I had hoped McCain might be more concerned about that than Obama, but… Let’s just say he gave his opening statement at the last debate and I turned off the tv in disgust. I told my housemate/landlord what he said and her reaction was “WHAT?!?!?!?!” Accompanied by the facial expression that says ‘you have to be kidding me.’ Okay, not actually that, but Moe would have to blam me if I put up the actual words.

    • blackhedd

      LIBOR is one of those things that are basically for specialists. LIBOR only became famous because journalists have been asking if there’s one single number (analogous to the Dow Jones Industrials Average) that can indicate the health of capital markets.

      I assume those quotes you gave are for dollar LIBOR (there are also versions for sterling, euro and gold-forward).

      The term-financing market is indeed frozen, and LIBOR rates are definitely fictitious at best, at this point. The overnight markets, particularly for collateralized repo, are reasonably functional.

      But it’s not necessarily unusual for overnight rates (which follow a different market dynamic) to be higher than term rates.

      For example, last night the Fed Funds rate in the US was about 2.24%. Fed funds is an interbank overnight interest rate. But the rates for all current US Treasury securities 3 years and shorter are below 2%! And there’s nothing frozen about either the Fed funds market or the front end of the Treasury yield curve.

      • wsjreader

        But it’s not necessarily unusual for overnight rates (which follow a different market dynamic) to be higher than term rates.

        For example, last night the Fed Funds rate in the US was about 2.24%. Fed funds is an interbank overnight interest rate. But the rates for all current US Treasury securities 3 years and shorter are below 2%! And there’s nothing frozen about either the Fed funds market or the front end of the Treasury yield curve.

        Of course you can have an inverted yield curve for lots of reasons such as expectations in rate cuts and/or recession, the imbalance in demand of short/long term borrowing needs etc. I understand that. In treasury securies’ case, this may mean the enormous money pumped into the markets have flooded the short term end of the yield curve etc. Plus, the Fed funds are much more restrictive, banks do not go to the central banks to borrow money for everything.

        I’m still very puzzled by the enormous spread between overnight LIBOR and 1 & 3 months LIBOR.

        Yeah, those quotes are dollar LIBOR. The sterling & euro LIBORS are also very high.

        • blackhedd

          I’m hearing that the spread between long-dated Treasury bonds (20 years and longer) and received-in swap interest rates at equivalent points on the yield curve is now negative, and has been for the better part of a day.

          That makes no sense at all. It’s telling you that the US Treasury is more risky than swap counterparties, which is impossible.

          There’s always an inner dynamic when market outcomes appear superficially irrational. Those inner dynamics are often hard to discern.