Emerging Markets – Caught in the Crossfire

US monetary policy has missed its mark and it is a handful of emerging markets that look set to pay the price

The big guns of monetary policy used to combat sluggish economic growth are about to be put away but the real damage may be just about to kick in.  The Federal Reserve adopted loose monetary policy to get the US economy moving again but it is elsewhere where the effects have been felt the most.  Having benefited more from the loose monetary policy than the intended target, some emerging markets look set to suffer as a policy reversal prompts US investors to stage a destructive retreat back home.

Danger zone

The proverbial printing presses at central banks are like the heavy artillery of monetary policy.  Central banks such as the Federal Reserve had been pumping out cash to buy bonds as part of quantitative easing.  Yet, the US economy had failed to fire up with companies unwilling to invest while spending remains weak.  Investors with cash in hand turned their sights overseas and targeted emerging markets where economic growth was still perky. 

The surplus US dollars helped to lower interest rates for borrowers in many countries which had not gotten caught up in the global financial crisis.  The reduced borrowing costs pushed up lending elsewhere despite not having the same effects in the US economy.  The muted effects of monetary policy in the domestic economy prompted the Federal Reserve to unleash even more firepower.  Money, like some things, is fine in moderation but the bombardment of US dollars inadvertently created its own minefield. 

Borrowers in emerging market were only given access to cheap cash by borrowing in US dollars for a short period of time.  This was fine as long as the prospects for the US economy were poor and US dollars were readily available.  But any significant improvement in the US economy would see investors shift their money back.  A stronger US economy would also push up the value of the US dollar and make it tougher for overseas borrowers to pay off any debts in US dollars. 

Collateral damage

Like solider stationed in a hostile region, investors were set up to bail when the opportunity arose.  Just the mere mention by the Federal Reserve in May 2013 that quantitative easing might be coming to an end was enough to trigger a rush by investors to get their money out.  Six months of market volatility followed even though quantitative easing did not actually end until October 2014.  With the Federal Reserve now mulling lifting interest rates up from their low levels, more upheaval seems likely.

This is because money often does more damage on the way out compared to the gains when it is initially welcomed.  Yet, the lure of cheap cash is too much to ignore.  Even the financial sectors in richer countries have shown themselves to be unable to cope when too much money is on offer.  Less developed banking systems in emerging markets are often even worse at putting any cash to good use.  This increases the likelihood that many borrowers will struggle when US dollars are harder to come by. 

As the aftermath of the global financial crisis has made painfully clear, a swift end to a lending boom is not something easy to get over.  In its attempts to deal with an US economy sagging under the weight of excess debt, the Federal Reserve has inflicted the same woes on others who are less able to deal with the consequences.  Like any form of warfare, it is the innocent victims that suffer the most.

Global Economy - Half-time Report

It is game on in Brazil but many are hoping for less thrills in the financial markets in the second half of 2014

Just like in a football match, the half-way point (of 2014) is a good time to assess progress so far and look ahead to the second half.  The first six months have been relatively boring but in a good way, after participants and spectators of financial markets have been riding by the seat of their pants over the past few years.  The game plan so far has been an emphasis on defence with central banks in Europe and Japan providing more support for their economies while tapering by the Federal Reserve has been at a measured pace.  Investors are betting on a quiet second half to 2014 but this will depend on whether the markets can hold their nerve when confronted by the prospect of tighter monetary policy.

Tension is building

The start of 2014 could be considered a success on a number of fronts.  There are reasons for optimism in terms of the economic recovery such as swiftly falling unemployment in many countries.  Share markets are buoyant suggesting that investors are willing to take on risk.  Interest rates on government debt have dramatically fallen for most countries in Europe whose debt has previously been shunned by investors.  The focus of policy makers is no longer on dealing with the potential for crisis but instead on bolstering the economy recovery.

The only problem with this is that much of the progress has been built on loose monetary policy which is due to come to an end.  Investors will have to manoeuvre around the winding up of quantitative easing and higher interest rates.  This will be like a football team losing one player in defence – not the end of the world but it opens up the potential for calamity.  One consequence is that it is unclear how the second half of 2014 will play out.

May 2013 proves us with one example of what is likely to happen sometime soon .  In this month last year, financial markets went into spasms as the Federal Reserve signalled that it would cut back on its monthly bond purchases that constituted its quantitative easing program.  A repeat of what has since been labelled “taper tantrum” seems likely but with higher interest rates as the trigger (maybe prompting headlines of “rates rampage”).  Another popular phrase has been “fragile five” after countries who suffered at the hands of financial market who can turn nervy at any time.

When will things kick off?

The game plan from policy makers adopted so far this year is likely to stay in place considering the relative calm in the financial markets.  The aim will be to not let in any goals (especially any own goals) rather than pushing to score gains in economic growth.  As a result, it is tough to see any big changes in the economy itself.  Dramatic improvements in the economy are not likely with governments continuing to mend their finances.  Loose monetary policy may also not be as useful as hoped in boosting spending by consumers or investment by firms even as the economy shows sign of getting a second wind. 

Whether the benign economic conditions continue into the next six months depends on the fickle nature of investors.  Like an erratic football striker who often gets stroppy, investors need to get their way in order to be kept happy.  Central banks will likely take a cautious approach so investors don’t retreat to the side-lines.  This is likely to result in the first hike in interest rates by the Bank of England, which is ahead of its peers in this regard, being pushed back to at least next year.  Further reasons for delay include other policy options being available to the UK central bank and a likely negative effect on the pound from any rise in interest rates.  Others such as the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan likely have even more to offer in terms of loose monetary policy to play ball with investors.

The football world cup in Brazil has been notable for its outstanding goals and nail-biting action.  In contrast, many will be hoping that the financial markets in the second half of 2014 will be as exciting as a nil-all draw. But just like a game going into extra time and penalty, some excitement is inevitable as monetary policy tightens and it is something that the financial markets will have to cope with this year or next.

US Monetary Policy – Investors face stormy future

US investors have been blessed with calm seas of late but their good luck is unlikely to last

Monetary Policy has entered a period of calm after enduring something of a turbulent passage through the global financial crisis.  The unprecedented tempest which buffeted the banking sector led central banks to trial a number of measures never seen before.  Yet, since tapering of quantitative easing was launched at the end of 2013, it has been relatively smooth sailing.  Tapering has been implemented in steady waves so as to not shake the delicate stomachs of investors.  However, rather than signalling the end of the choppy weather in the financial markets, the current lull could just be the eye of the storm.

Skies clear following predictable monetary policy

Investors prefer favourable conditions in the same way as sailors.  A view far ahead to the horizon is prized in the financial markets as well as by mariners.  One element that helps investors to better plan a course for the future is having a predictable monetary policy as a guide.  Investors had come to rely too much on the Federal Reserve as a steady hand at the helm using quantitative easing to put some wind back in the sails of the US economy.  Problems thus arose when the Federal Reserve first floated the idea of trimming back its expansive monetary policy in the middle of 2013.

What was a stiff breeze for the US hit many emerging markets like a financial hurricane.  This is because a considerable portion of the money printed in the US had travelled the globe in search of more bountiful returns.  Some developing countries had become a haven for the extra cash but the money left in a whirlwind once the prospects for returns in the US picked up.  The resulting market turbulence pushed some countries to the brink of going under, but investors eventually settled down again after adjusting to the new forecasts.

The outlook for US monetary policy has brightened considerably with the steady progression of tapering.  The Federal Reserve has cut back its purchasing of bonds by US$10 billion at each of its meetings, which happen almost every month.  As a result, bond purchases have been reduced a few times already in 2014 and fell from US$85 billion in late 2013 to US$45 billion at the most recent meeting at the end of April.  The predictability of US monetary policy also survived the potential shipwreck that was the change in skipper from Ben Bernanke to Janet Yellen at the beginning of the year.

Forecast for storms ahead

All is well for now.  However, there may be trouble on the horizon as tapering is just the start of the Federal Reserve relinquishing its role of propping up the economy.  A bigger storm may be coming next year as interest rates have to be raised from their current record low levels.  The Federal Reserve has pledged not to change interest rates for a while as it monitors the economic recovery.  Interest rate hikes must happen sometime in the next year or so especially in light of the surprising improvements in the US job market.

The end of quantitative easing and higher interest rates are all part of a voyage back to normality.  It has been a strange new world in terms of both the financial markets and monetary policy following the waves of financial havoc over the past several years.  The recent squalls that hit emerging markets can be seen as a necessary part of this journey.  Nevertheless, other rough patches may still lie ahead considering that it is far from normal for US stocks to be pushing on record highs despite slow economic growth. 

While it is tough to gauge what normal should look like in terms of the financial markets, the signs indicate that rough seas lie ahead.  Emerging markets have already taken a beating which makes it likely that the next storm may strike US investors closer to home.  

China and its growing pains

The Chinese economy is treated like a problem child by the media but does not deserve its bad reputation

Growing pains have led to a lot of bad press recently for both China and Justin Bieber.  The development of both has been closely watched for any signs they are going off the rails.  Bieber has been much maligned for bad behaviour as he shakes off a boyish image.  China has been the driver of growth in the global economy but may not continue to fulfil this role.  Just like Bieber, much of the new stories on China are negative but China is different in that it does not deserve the harsh treatment in the press.

Big trouble in little China?

Like a spoilt kid growing up in front of the media, a developing economy can always expect a few troubles along the way.  Even more so when every step is analysed in detail as has been the case with the once-in-a-generation rise of a new superpower (China, not Justin Bieber).  The Chinese economy always seems to be on the cusp of a breakdown according to many experts.

The current concern with China is the high level of debt amid a surge in investment.  Some of the money has gone into projects that have not panned out as shown by empty housing apartments and dodgy infrastructure ventures.  The bulk of wayward spending tends to turn up in out-of-the-way places, such as the far-flung regions of China.  Here, both private and public investment is driven more by politics than by financial fundamentals.

Local politicians need a growing economy to please their masters in central government.  Large building projects are a convenient shortcut to achieve this and banks can be cajoled into lending to maintain their political connections.  Banks have limited room to move in China due to regulations which limit the level of interest rates on savings.  This encourages savers to stash their money in what is referred to as the “shadow banking sector”.  These offer higher returns on savings and provide firms who are shunned by banks access to loans.  But being outside the normal banking system means that this sector is harder to keep tabs on and influence through policy.

Bigger worries elsewhere in the world

Talk of politicians pushing projects and shady banks does not seem to bode well for China, but its banking sector is likely to be no worse than Western banks.  Banks in the US pushed dubious mortgages throughout the global financial system during their own lending binge.  At least any direct ramifications of a banking meltdown will be mostly contained within China.  Yet, such worries fail to take into consideration one crucial factor – the controlling influence that is the Chinese government.

The government in China has both the willingness and the ability to step in and shore up the banking sector if required.  The Chinese government intervened with a massive fiscal stimulus in 2008 and 2009 as the global economy slowed.  In comparison, most Western governments only managed a half-hearted response to the global financial crisis.  A sluggish economy with high unemployment is not something that the Chinese government would tolerate as its own existence would be under threat.

Another positive for China is that any potential problems with its banking sector are not symptomatic of bigger issues.  The financing for debt in China does not come from overseas but through China’s own reserves.  Neither is the surge in investment causing the overall economy to overheat as evidenced by subdued levels of inflation and a relatively low volume of imports.  The contrast with countries making up the “fragile five” could not be starker.  China is likely to ride out any bumps in the future as it develops but the same may not hold true for the turbulent career of Justin Bieber.

Your Neighbourhood Economist turns 100

Not much cheer considering how little progress in dealing with economic stagnation has been made since the blog began

There has not been much to celebrate of late but Your Neighbourhood Economist is happy to have reached a satisfying milestone – 100 blogs (not years).  This blog started by asking “so what is going on?” back in November 2011, lamenting weak growth in the global economy.  Little did Your Neighbourhood Economist (or many others) know that there would still be few signs of improvement over two years later.

Perhaps the only consolation is that things could be worse.  At least the Eurozone has not self destructed (yet) thanks to the European Central Bank stepping in.  US politicians also showed some surprising good sense despite all expectations to the contrary.  But the positives are few and far between.

Governments in many countries have too much debt to be able to boost spending which is leaving monetary policy as the main route out of the current weak economic growth.  However, expansive monetary policy has not been enough to generate much economic stimulus despite record low interest rates and loads of newly printed cash in the global financial system.  In fact, monetary policy may be doing more harm than good.  

Movements of surplus funds are creating havoc in emerging markets.  Uncertainty over the direction of monetary policy is a major obstacle in the way of a return to economic growth.  The costs of such policies are becoming more evident as the benefits are increasingly being called into question.

Central banks have struggled as the traditional tools of monetary policy have failed to have much of an effect.  New ideas have been tried (such as forward guidance) but the desired results have proved elusive.  Policy makers are getting side-tracked as new problems, such as concerns about deflation in Europe, draw their attention away from more pressing issues such as reforms.

Chances to celebrate may be a long way off so Your Neighbourhood Economist is glad for reasons to be cheerful (such as reaching 100 blogs) whenever possible.

The True Cost of Quantitative Easing

Quantitative easing has been short-term pain relief with long-term damage and some ugly side-effects

Life on drugs must be great – but the high cannot last for ever.  Such has been the case with quantitative easing.  The financial markets have been buzzing due to the money pouring out of the Federal Reserve as part of its monetary stimulus program.  The costs of shot after shot of extra cash are easy to forget when times are good.  It is only now that the Federal Reserve has decided that it is time to wean investors off their quantitative easing fix that we are seeing the true repercussions of addiction to easy money.

Costs of kicking the habit

Investors are already getting the shakes as the Federal Reserve moves to lower the dosage of its monetary policy.  Stock markets around the world wobbled in early 2014 as the Federal Reserve trimmed US$10 billion off its monthly bond purchases in December and January.  The extent to which stock markets have benefitted from the monetary stimulus is unclear but substantial.  This means that volatility is likely to continue as share prices find their appropriate level without any interference from the Federal Reserve.

Investors have reacted strongly to any attempts by the Federal Reserve to renounce its role as drug dealer for the financial markets.  The policy of quantitative easing in itself has been like a drug habit – easy to start but tough to break.  As is often the case with bad habits, it is only when trying to quit that the real costs become apparent.

It looks as if the comedown will take the form of a lethargic economic recovery that may last for years.  Uncertainty is one of the primary stumbling blocks standing in the way of economic rehabilitation.  The slow tapering of quantitative easing followed by interest rates being gradually pushed upward will be enough to keep even the experts on edge.  Thus, while the monetary stimulus has eased the pain of the global slowdown, the economy will be held back by the “ifs” and “buts” of monetary policy.

Emerging Markets Hit by Side-Effects

If the past few weeks of stock market jitters are anything to go by, it may be emerging markets that suffer the worst withdrawal symptoms.  Many developing countries had benefited from the extra cash in the global financial system coming from quantitative easing.  Low levels of domestic savings mean that such countries rely on funds from overseas and their chronic cravings for growth make poorer countries prone to overdosing.  Their vulnerable position leaves them at the mercy of the money peddlers from wealthy countries who often have the upper hand.

It is a sad twist of fate that the worst consequences of monetary policy in the US will be felt far from its shores.  One of the reasons why quantitative easing has had little effect in boosting the US economy may be due to a considerable portion of the newly printed money heading overseas.  The amount of cash flowing out of the US has been large enough to warp the economies of some developing countries.  The hit on their financial wellbeing as the money returns back to the US has also been a downer.

A silver lining is that past crises have taught emerging markets to be more resilient – this time at least the IMF will not be kicking down any doors (like the police at a narcotics bust) as might have been the case in the past.  It is also clear that emerging markets still need to do more to better manage their addiction to foreign funds.  While emerging markets have learnt some lessons from past predicaments, we can only hope that the Federal Reserve can do the same. 

Fragile Five – the Silver Lining

A deeper look into the problems of the Fragile Five shows that the fault does not lie with global finance.

There are times in life when it is tough to figure out who is the hero and who is the villain.  Such may be the case with the current turmoil engulfing emerging markets.  Adding ignominy to injury, economists have tarred Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and South Africa with the dubious epithet of “the Fragile Five” as an outflow of funds has sparked a multitude of economic imbalances.  Investors have been quick to yank their money out as higher investment returns are expected to follow the paring back of monetary stimulus.  First impressions might suggest that the blame lies with the fickle nature of global finance. 

Yet, as with all good detective novels, it is not always the obvious culprit who is in the wrong.  It is entirely logical that money should move out of badly run countries in the same way as shoddy companies are shunned by investors.  It is more often corrosive politics that are to blame for driving investors away.  With this in mind, a shake-up at the (invisible) hands of the financial markets may work out for the best.

The blame game

Politicians themselves have been quick to blame the Federal Reserve in the US.  The Federal Reserve was buying US$85 billion in bonds each month in 2013, which drove down the yields on US bonds and prompted investors to shift their money overseas in search of better returns.  Reductions in these monthly bond purchases have triggered a return of funds from overseas which has caught out many emerging economies.

If politicians in emerging markets were honest (admittedly, an odd concept), their fingers would be pointing closer to home.  Many emerging economies benefited from the cheap capital but came to rely on it too much.  Economic growth which had been sustained past the global financial crisis began to slow as governments put off reforms to keep their economies going.  Instead, governments tapped into funds from overseas to ramp up spending and cover growing shortfalls in demand.  This only masked the problems which have since been laid bare by the countries being stripped of their external financing (see No need to fear for the Fragile Five for more on this). 

No more excuses for politicians

All of the talk surrounding the Fragile Five tends to focus on their economies but the real issue is with their politics.  The rise of the middle classes in these countries has been a catalyst for more responsive government.  Minor issues have triggered large protests fuelled by frustrated voters.  A rise in transport costs incited upheaval in Brazil.  A sit-in protest at a park in Istanbul escalated into unrest throughout Turkey.  The rapid rise of an anti-corruption party threatens to derail the major parties in elections in India.  Workers strike in South Africa demanding higher wages.

The faltering economic growth has revealed the inadequacies of government.  Slower economic growth means that voters cannot be bought off with higher incomes.  Their dissatisfaction has now been coupled with that of investors who hold the upper hand in terms of where they stash their cash.  Being spurned by investors does involve some short-term pain.  However, this can be limited by countries building up foreign currency reserves.  Other measures such as controls over inflows and outflows of funds are increasingly gaining acceptance (for more, see beware of a flood of funds).

There are clear long-term benefits from keeping politicians in emerging markets honest by means of checks rooted in global finance.  Voters everywhere are disillusioned with their politicians (a sentiment shared by Your Neighbourhood Economist) and emerging countries are no exception.  But levels of wealth in poorer countries are considerably more dependent on the quality of their politicians.  Governments in developing countries also have a tendency to fiddle with the economy through state-owned firms or measures against free trade.  Argentina is probably the best example of this - the country is so badly run that it does not even attract enough foreign capital to merit inclusion in the Fragile Five.

Extra incentives for governments to adopt appropriate policies should thus be welcomed.  Trying to stick to the economic equivalent of a diet may not be easy but there are rewards at the end of it.  In conclusion, there is no point in blaming someone who keeps you on the straight and narrow, in fact, there is a lot to gain.

No need to fear for the Fragile Five

While it may look like emerging markets are being tormented by global investors, there could be a happy ending.

What's in a name?  Well, the moniker “Fragile Five” suggests all is not rosy but the countries (Brazil, Turkey, India, Indonesia, and South Africa) labelled thus have things other than name calling to worry about.  Namely, the fact that it appears as though the Fragile Five are being picked on by the international financial system.  The leader of the pack has been the Federal Reserve whose trimming back of its stimulus package has triggered a massive shift in global finances.  While no country would choose to be browbeaten by investors, a lecture on bad economic policy might help these countries avoid a story of more woe in the future.

What is going wrong?

Emerging markets have fallen victim to the fleeting nature of foreign investors.  The global financial system has been awash with money due to central banks such as the Federal Reserve printing cash to stimulate Western economies.  Low financial returns in developed countries have prompted investors to look abroad for places to park their money.  Perkier economic growth in developing economies has been an oasis for investment as options elsewhere dried up.

Emerging markets are typically in need of extra cash.  There are little savings available to fund the investments needed to build homes, roads, and factories as the economy develops.  These cash-starved countries are a good fit with cash-rich investors but there is a need to get the balance right.  Unfortunately, many emerging economies come to overly depend on the cash provided by investors to fund their economic growth.  As is the case with things offered up on the cheap, the good times don’t always last and investors always have the option of taking their money elsewhere.

Along with slumping stock markets, the effects of emerging markets falling out of favour with investors are most keenly felt through a drop in currencies in emerging markets.  A weaker currency results in emerging markets having to pay more for their imports, which exacerbates the problem of high spending on overseas goods such as oil.  Higher prices for imports also push up inflation which is already too high in many emerging markets.  Many of these countries also struggle with large government budget deficits as slower economic growth prompts greater fiscal spending.

How things are being put right

While the Federal Reserve has been measured in its approach to changing policy, central banks in the Fragile Five have been all action.  The central bank in Turkey lifted its overnight lending rate for banks from 7.75% to 12% while their counterparts in other countries also increased their rates by smaller amounts.  The higher interest rates are designed to make it more attractive to hold the currency of that country as part of an attempt to stem the selling on the foreign exchange markets.  An increase in the costs of borrowing also has the effect of cooling the economy and reducing the demand for imports.

It is lucky for the Fragile Five that the most important actions have already been taken to prepare them for the ebb and flow of global capital.  Emerging economies have learnt from the Asian financial crisis in 1997 when many economies in Southeast Asia were decimated due to high levels of foreign debt and a system of fixed exchange rates.  The adoption of floating exchange rates along with large foreign currency reserves means that another crisis is unlikely.  Inflows of foreign funds are treated with less welcoming arms and greater acceptance of the need for controls over the movement of money in and out of economies with less developed financial systems (for more info, see beware of a flood of funds).

Your Neighbourhood Economist would even argue that there are some positives.  The global financial crisis and the Eurozone crisis have shown what can happen when imbalances in an economy get out of hand.  Investors can be a fickle bunch (many people are where money is concerned) but investor sentiment is typically a good gauge of how well an economy is operating.  If subprime mortgages or lending in southern Europe had also led to a revolt in the market, most of us would be better off (see bond investors ain’t all bad for more on this).  With this in mind, perhaps foreign investors should not be seen as bullies, but more like an older brother (who may not always be nice) keeping you out of trouble.