Recently, the mainstream media has
been noting the cracks that are starting to appear in the world's emerging
markets and currencies. A commentary by Guillermo Ortiz, former Governor
of the Bank of Mexico looks at the challenges that the world's emerging markets
will face as the Federal Reserve (and other central banks) return to
"business as usual". Here is the opening paragraph from his
commentary which pretty much says it all:
"Although all crises share
common traits, each is very particular in its own way. At times the resolution
of a crisis can create a new set of problems for which the original response is
ill-fitted. In rare cases, these problems become as substantial as the original
catastrophe and overlap with the recovery. In these circumstances, there is no
rule- book to guide policy. The challenge then is to adequately prepare for the
ensuing disruption. Such is the case of the current global conundrum. The
unprecedented monetary stimulus, which flooded the global economy after the
great financial crisis, now risks destabilizing the world economy and the
international financial system if the appropriate policy measures are not taken
to limit the potential costs of collateral effects from unconventional
policies." (my bold)
Mr. Ortiz notes that the massive
response to the global financial crisis has inflated the assets of
the central banks of the G-4 nations to an unprecedented $10 trillion
and are expected to add an additional $2 billion by the end of 2014. To
put these assets into perspective, here are the sizes of the central bank
balance sheets in terms of their respective nation's GDP:
United States - 22.6 percent
United Kingdom - 26.7 percent
Euro Area - 27.4 percent
Japan - 31.5 percent
The author also notes that, in
contrast to advanced economies, the world's emerging economies have fared quite
well as shown here:
Advanced Economies - av'g growth since 2008 - 1 percent
Emerging Economies - av'g growth
since 2008 - 5.3 percent
In large part, the ultra-easy
monetary conditions have led to a massive flow of capital to emerging markets.
Normally, this would be a good thing because it supports economic growth in developing economies,
however, it can result in excessive currency appreciation and unstable increases
in the prices of assets, particularly bonds. Since 2008, there has been a strong rally the
value of emerging market assets, largely because the near-zero interest rate
policies of the four major central banks have led investors to seek yield
rather than investing in capital. Since 2010, private capital flows to
emerging markets have averaged $1.1 trillion. This has had the
unintended consequence of creating a boom in the issuance of both corporate and
sovereign debt throughout the world's emerging economies; since 2008, issuance
of public sector debt has risen by 50 percent and dollar-denominated corporate
debt has increased by a very substantial 350 percent!
Not surprisingly, Mr. Ortiz focusses
on the repercussions of the influence of ultra-easy money on Mexico. Here
is a summary of what has happened to Mexico:
1.) Net private capital inflows
since 2010 have averaged over $60 billion, skewed toward government debt and
equity investment.
2.) Foreign holdings of Mexican
government debt have risen from 9 percent in 2007 to 37 percent in 2013.
I would suspect that this is what could be termed "hot money";
investors will bail on these riskier bonds once yields of Treasuries rise to
historical norms, pushing fixed income prices down and yields up.
3.) Interest rates on two- and
ten-year notes have fallen to 3.8 percent and 4.4 percent respectively, down
from their 2001 to 2007 averages of 8.5 percent and 9.1 percent respectively.
This has the unintended consequence of allowing Mexico (and other
nations) to issue massive volumes of debt with minimal increases in overall
debt interest payments....at least, for now.
Here is a chart showing what has happened
to the yield on Mexico's ten year bonds over the past five years, noting the
rather sharp jump in yield in May 2013 and the gradual drop in yields as
investors, seeking yield, purchased increasing volumes of Mexico's debt,
pushing prices up and yields down:
Looking further afield, foreign
holdings of Turkish debt has risen from 11 percent in 2008 to 30 percent in
2013 with over 90 percent of Turkey's total external debt being denominated in
foreign currencies. South Africa has seen foreign ownership of its
government debt rise from 25 percent in 2008 to 38 percent in 2013.
Obviously, the policies of the world's major advanced central banks has
created distortions, the unwinding of which could create huge problems for the
world's emerging economies as the Fed, in particular, tapers its experiment.
All investors needed to do is look at what happened in May 2013, as the
Fed signalled its intention to "contemplate tapering" if we want to see what lies ahead.
Investors unwound their highly leveraged positions, resulting in a
combined net outflow of $25 billion worth of emerging market equities and bonds.
Emerging market government bonds fell 5.3 percent, corporate bonds
declined 7.2 percent, currencies depreciated by 5.1 percent and equities
dropped by 13.9 percent. A harbinger of things to come? Absolutely
Here is a chart showing what has happened to
the yield on Turkey's ten year bonds since 2010, noting that the yield has
risen sharply from just over 6 percent in mid-2013 to its current level of 10.7
percent:
Here is a chart showing what happened to the
yield on South Africa's ten year bonds since 2009, again, noting that yields
rose from 5.77 percent in mid-2013 to their current level of 8.3 percent:
In both cases, as I noted above, the
interest rate on both emerging nation's bonds was pushed to an artificially low
level thanks to the current zero-interest rate policies of the Federal Reserve
et al and have now risen by a very substantial amount, an amount that could
well prove to be punitive over the long run particularly given that many emerging market nations have issued unprecedented levels of new debt..
In the specific case of Mexico, the
very mention of tapering caused the peso to decline by 7.9 percent, equities
dropped 6.2 percent, dollar-denominated corporate bonds fell by 6.7 percent and
the yield on 10-year government bonds increased by 133 basis points (compared
to 60 basis points for U.S. Treasuries).
It looks like investors are already
starting to feel the fallout from the unsustainable policies implemented
by the Federal Reserve and its G-4 central bank peers. The experience of
Mexico in mid-2013 looks like it may well be the predictor for what will
happened to the world's emerging markets as central banks reverse course.
Unfortunately, hundreds of millions of people in developing nations are
likely to suffer the brunt of the damage done by five years of fiscal
experimentation.
Apparently, the piper must be paid.
So stimulating economic growth during a deep recession with easy money has a downside. I imagine the downside of NOT easing would be far worse than some sloshing around of yields and forex.
ReplyDeleteBut QEs to infinity are bad.For example,it has ultimately dawned on those concerned that mere QEs will not solve problems.
DeleteAs if to add fuel to fire,QEs are accompanied by the misuse of the Derivatives ti DEFLATE!That's going too far.
Please google:
Debasement of Coinage Nicolaus Copernicus Keynes