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.

Quantitative Easing – Getting less from more

The European Central Bank has been late to try quantitative easing and may find that additional euros cannot buy much relief

We all have the tendency to rely on the tried and true tricks we have found helpful in the past even when their usefulness has faded.  This also seems true of central banks who have come to rely on quantitative easing even though its effects show signs of fading.  Even the initial boost provided by the first attempts at quantitative easing was limited and the situation has deteriorated amid its continued application.  As the last major central bank to give it a go, the European Central Bank will not get much return from any extra cash. 

Why more is not always more

Economist should know that repeating the same policies does not always work considering a well-used idea in economic theory known as diminishing returns.  This concept refers to the way in which more of the same often comes with fewer additional benefits.  Economists use this to describe why the second plate of ice cream does not taste as good as the first or why one more cook in a crowded kitchen doesn’t necessarily improve the food. 

Printing more money, which is the basis for quantitative easing, sounds like a sure-fire way to generate economic growth but any economy can only handle so much money.  The world is already awash with cash even before central banks started with quantitative easing.  This means that every additional dollar, euro, or pound printed as part of quantitative easing is being added to an already substantial pile of cash.  With money already being hoarded by many companies and governments not wanting to spend more cash, there is not much use for any more.

No need for more

With the meagre effects of quantitative easing on the wane, it was the earlier versions that would have generated the most bang for each additional buck.  It was the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England that tried out the first rounds of quantitative easing – the goal was to push investors away from government bonds to more risky investments such as corporate bonds or stocks.  The hope was that this would help provide companies with easier access to cash and to perk up investors by boosting share prices. 

Not all of the extra dollars and pounds would have stayed local but also headed overseas to find places to earn more money.  This meant that the effects of quantitative easing would have been felt far beyond the countries where the cash was originally coming from.  It has been helpful in places such as Portugal and Spain with overseas investors buying bonds issued by the Portuguese and Spanish governments as worries about Europe eased.

With the effects of quantitative easing having already spilled across international borders, there is not much more to be gained from even more cash.  As such, the additional euros coming out of the European Central Bank following the recent launch of quantitative easing in Europe may not amount to much.  Any further action may also be limited as the saga over whether or not to implement quantitative easing has highlighted how the European Central Bank only has limited room for manoeuvre when running in opposition to Germany.  Now, more than ever, it is time to try something new.

China – Playing Catch Up

Many expect the Chinese economy to misbehave but it is more likely that China will grow out itself out of trouble

China is growing up in front of our eyes and there is an expectation that, like any adolescent, it will get into trouble before fulfilling its promise.  Naysayers predict that China’s growth spurt has left it with a number of issues that must be worked through before it can get any bigger.  Yet, China has a good head on its shoulders in the form of the Communist Party which will do all it can to keep the economy buoyant.  While the years of stellar growth are likely over, it need not mean that the Chinese economy will be held back.

Big trouble in (not so) little China?

The spectacular rate of growth achieved by China over the past decade could never continue forever.  Quite the opposite, the rapid expansion would have been harmful if it had been maintained and a slower pace of growth is actually a preferable outcome.  This is because much of the economic growth had been fuelled by investment – construction of new factories to sell cheap goods overseas along with the expansion of megacities in China to accommodate an influx of workers from the countryside. Normally, investment accounts for around 10% to 15% of GDP in most developed countries but reached 50% of GDP in China. 

This building frenzy could not continue especially when it is becoming more difficult to make money and some investments would be wasted on pointless projects.  It is the examples of this, empty apartment blocks and overly lavish public spending, that pessimists point to as evidence that China has gone too far.  With large amounts of bad debt expected to result from these poor investments, the financial sector is expected to take a big hit and drag the whole economy down with it.  The argument is basically that China has gotten too big for its boots and will need to shrink.

Growing up is never easy

Your Neighbourhood Economist would instead argue that China has a similar problem to what he had when he was growing up.  His mother would buy Your Neighbourhood Economist clothes that were too big for him in the knowledge that he would grow into them.  It is ungainly to be sporting oversized gear and this seems to be similar to the phase China is going through.  This is partly because China had been expanding so quickly that any investment needs to be put up in a hurry.  There is also the added complication of spending getting out of hand as regional politicians try to impress their bosses in the Communist Party.

Yet, China, like a much younger version of Your Neighbourhood Economist, still has a lot of growing to do.  Some of the ill-fitting parts of the Chinese economy may be put to better use as its citizen will continue to migrate toward the cities in search of work.  China has also learnt lessons from its investment binge with the central government shifting emphasis from economic growth to other benefits of greater wealth such as a cleaner environment and a more efficient bureaucracy.  Local officials are being brought into line through a crackdown on corruption and concentration of power within the Communist Party.

Along with changes to policy, the Chinese government also has the resources to deal with any past mistakes.  With both domestic savings and government reserves at high levels, there is plenty of money around if needed.  And, with an eye firmly fixed on keeping the economy growing, the Communist Party would not be as timid compared to Western governments in terms of stepping in and shoring up the banking sector if needed.  China is also moving away from investment as the driver of its economic growth and consumption is expected to pick up the slack (albeit with growth at a slower pace).

Growing while you watch

Your Neighbourhood Economist has seen the change in China with his own eyes.  In a visit 15 years ago, the Pudong area across the river in Shanghai seemed like a ghost town but one that had been freshly built with a scattering of skyscrapers.  Now, Pudong is anything but quiet and the pace at which new buildings continue to go up is testament to China’s growth.  It also shows that it you build it (in China at least), they will (still) come.

Monetary Policy – where has the magic gone?

The European Central Bank tries to cast another spell to save the Eurozone but its magic has been stolen

Monetary policy is like magic – you have to use tricks to get people into believing what you want them to believe.  Both magicians and central banks apply various devices to convince their audience that they can pull off amazing feats.  A bit of showmanship can be crucial in creating an aura of the fantastical when your powers are actually rather limited.  Central banks have pulled this off in the past but quantitative easing by the European Central Bank is more likely to show that it does not have any rabbits left to pull out of the hat.

Trying to work magic

Your Neighbourhood Economist likes to look back fondly to an era when central banks had the financial market enthralled with their mastery of all things economic.  This admiration was won the hard way in the 1980s by bringing double-digit inflation back to more manageable levels and ushering in an era where the booms and busts seemed to have past.  But central banks have been taken down a notch by their inability to revive the economy after the global financial crisis. 

Slashing of interest rates has not worked as high levels of debt meant that no one wanted to borrow. Upping the ante, central banks tried pumping money into the financial system through quantitative easing.  The effect on the actual economy due to quantitative easing also looks to be limited at a time when there is already a lot of spare cash in the financial system.  Financial markets were buoyed by quantitative easing but a side effect has been the potential for heightened volatility in the financial markets. 

With few other options seen as viable, quantitative easing has gone from an unconventional measure to the mainstay policy for central banks despite questions over its usefulness.  The European Central Bank has been slow to try its hand at quantitative easing even though the Eurozone economy was struggling more than most.  This was because Germany (who had initially done well despite its neighbours being in crisis) was firmly against the central bank in Europe printing cash to buy government bonds.  It was only after a further considerable deterioration in the prospects for the Eurozone (as well as that of Germany itself) that the European Central Bank to override this opposition.  

No more magic left

The European Central Bank has been put at a disadvantage considering that the other big central banks have already tried to work their magic through quantitative easing.  Investors are becoming harder to impress having already seen central banks pull off similar tricks.  To maintain the wow factor, quantitative easing has needed to get bigger and bigger.  The central bank in Japan pledged to double the money supply within two years but had to offer up even more cash when its initial plans proved to be lacking. 

The European Central Bank cannot compete on scale as it has to perform magic with one hand behind its back due to the political constraints within the Eurozone.  Any extra boost using the element of surprise was also dented by the protracted process as the European Central Bank and Germany squabbled publicly over quantitative easing in the months before the policy was launched. 

The fractious politics in Europe has sapped power from the central bank who had previously been the main shining light in saving the Eurozone.  Political squabbles have highlighted the limited power at the disposal of the European Central Bank.  It is like a magician who is being sabotaged by their own assistant – it will take more than magic to escape this spell.

Productivity – cutting both ways

Far from being a cure-all, productivity gains are instead cutting into the number of jobs

Higher productivity seems like the answer to all of our economic woes but being more productive is not all good.  Doing more with less is a way of making us wealthier by getting more out of the limited resources available.  Improvements in productivity often thus translate into more profits or lower prices (or both).  But there is also a nasty side in that one of the resources that can be done away with is workers.  Trends such as greater globalization and improvements to technology have resulted in many (well paying) jobs being put to the chop and we should not be expecting any respite soon.

Doing more with less

Economics is a discipline which is based on the notion of scarce resources.  It is no surprise then that economists rave about how improvements to productivity are the key to prosperity.  Any business that can produce the same products using fewer inputs is bound to do well.  Being more productive as a worker is also opens up the way for the opportunity to demand higher wages.  Any gains from higher productivity are split between companies, employees, and consumers but it is not always the case that everyone gets a share.

My favourite example of productivity gains where everyone got their cut was Henry Ford and the motorcar.  Ford did not invent the automobile or the assembly line but he did figure out a way of manufacturing cars cheaply.  The continued existence of the Ford Motor Company is testament to how much he and his family have thrived.  On top of this, workers at the firm also benefited from the new jobs that were created as well as the higher wages on offer.  Cars also became available to many more people thanks to the mass production of the Model T resulting in a lower price tag.

Suffering from cut backs

The example of Henry Ford and the Model T shows how more can be produced cheaply using more workers.  But this is only a viable way of making money when there is a rapidly expanding consumer market and an appetite for more and more goods.  This seemingly came to an end in the richer countries when most households became wealthy enough to buy the basics such as a car, a fridge, and a TV.  Without being able to tap into economies of scale by producing more and more, the emphasis has since shifted to producing goods at the lowest cost. 

One of the main avenues for cutting costs has been outsourcing manufacturing and some services to countries where wages are lower.  Computers and the Internet have also helped companies save money by better optimising their operations and reducing the need for some clerical work.  Companies have obviously benefited from this and we have as consumers (due to lower prices) but not as workers.  There is no modern-day version of the Model T that might provide a new source of lucrative job opportunities.  Instead we spend our money on services (eating out or going away on holiday) or goods where much of the value is in design rather than the goods themselves (such as clothing or electronic gadgets).

Cut yourself free

The challenge for developed countries is to create more high paying jobs for its educated workforce.  Instead, the opposite seems to be happening and the economic recovery after the global financial crisis has been characterized by a proliferation of jobs with low pay.  Higher unemployment allowed companies to hire workers on the cheap and this has dulled incentives for business investment.  It is easier to get things done using cheap labour than spending money on making your current workers more productive. 

Unemployment in countries such as the US and the UK has fallen but this has yet to translate into significantly higher wages.  Neither is a rapid improvement likely as companies are still timid about investing due to the weak momentum of the economic recovery.  Government policy is also a hindrance due to the focus on austerity measures rather than taking advantage of low interest rates to invest.  

The only way out for beleaguered workers seems to be setting up their own business which has become increasingly more popular.  The jump in entrepreneurship may be one of the few silver linings as people cut themselves free to become their own boss and to have productivity gains there for the taking.

Low Oil Prices – Feeding the Addiction

Cheaper oil will bring about much cheer but it will help keep key oil producers happy in years to come

Oil is like a drug that the world economy cannot do without and we are in the midst of a turf war over who will call the shots.  A few dealers have had a stranglehold over the market for oil and have been able to set prices as they please.  The arrival of new kids on the block (with the rise of fracking in the US) has triggered a fight for control of the oil market.  The result has been a plunge in oil prices which is a blessing for the global economy but is part of a bigger strategy to keep us all addicted to oil for years to come.

Not a buyers’ market

The sharp drop in oil prices will provide a welcome boost to the economic recovery in many countries.  Oil is like a drug in that it is always in demand and buying continued despite high prices in the aftermath of the global financial crisis.  Prices for oil have only recently eased off (playing havoc with inflation) as demand from energy-hungry China has weakened while supply from the US has expanded.  Oil is also plagued by a further similarity to drugs in that the suppliers of oil tend to be some ugly characters such as Russia, Iran, and Venezuela (as well as some nice ones such as Canada and Norway).  But the kingpin of the oil market is Saudi Arabia due to the size of its reserves of oil and its willingness to adjust its output to market conditions.

Saudi Arabia is the top dog of a club called OPEC where some of the major producers of oil banded together to wrestle control of the oil market away from Western energy firms.  OPEC came to prominence in the 1970s when the countries cut oil output as a protest against Israel.  Along with the devastation wrought due to the resulting surge in oil prices, efforts to conserve energy also acted to weaken the need for oil.  Once oil prices returned to normal, OPEC has looked to set its output so as to make the most money while also suppressing incentives to cut back on oil consumption. 

Sticking to the optimal level of output was always going to be tricky when cheating would bring in extra cash.  This meant that not all members of OPEC stuck to their quotas set to manage the supply of oil and it was left to Saudi Arabia to shoulder the burden of larger cuts to production when required.  Saudi Arabia could pull this off due to its revenues from oil being more than enough to fund its government spending.  In contrast, governments in countries such as Venezuela and Iran spend big to support their anti-Western antics which tend to max out the cash from their energy sectors.

Trying to stay on top

The arrangements behind this oil cartel have been bust wide open due to the surge in oil output coming out from the US.  New fracking technology has unlocked previously inaccessible oil reserves and turned the US into a big player in the oil market.  Faced with a choice of cutting its output or suffer falling prices, OPEC chose the latter.  The Saudis, in particular, were not willing to take a hit and lose out in terms of market share.  As Saudi oil is typically cheap to get out of the ground, their hope is that a lower price for oil will drive others out of business.  A drop in oil prices will also scare away any investment in oil fields that would boost output in the future.

It pays for Saudi Arabia to take a long term view of the market seeing that it has so much oil still underground.  An abundance of new sources of oil or new technologies that eliminate the need for oil would take a big chunk out of the value of its underground stash.  Saudi Arabia is in a strong enough position to sacrifice short-term gain to lock in future control over the oil market.  Be thankful that the Saudis want oil to be cheap for now and keep us all addicted but don’t expect it to last (much more than a few years).

Fiscal Policy – Not fighting back

The government has been subdued in the fight to revive the economy despite a change in strategy being long overdue

Considering the trouble we are having fighting back against the aftermath of the financial crisis, it seems strange that the government is not using its full arsenal.  Central banks have come out all guns blazing with their monetary policy but governments have held back from firing up fiscal policy.  Worries about their levels of debt were behind this tepid response by governments but such concerns have eased while the economic recovery struggles to pick up momentum.  Why should be suffer further losses while saving our ammunition?

Hit and miss

Central banks launched themselves into the front line while governments remained in the background due to self-inflicted wounds.  Monetary policy had been enough to deal with past recessions and resulted in a belief that central banks were infallible in this regard.  High levels of debt along with a banking sector under attack meant that low interest rates had little effect and quantitative easing was not much better.  Along with not making much headway, monetary policy also caused considerable collateral damage in the form of financial instability.  This was a sign that central banks were being asked to do too much in the face of a once-in-a generation economic slump.

Most governments were happy to sit back having mismanaged their finances resulting in high levels of government debt prior to the crisis.  The Eurozone crisis prompted governments to further retreat amid worries that investors would shun any government with too much debt.  This pushed governments off on a trajectory of austerity which continued even though fears about government debt abated within several months.  The economic recovery has been muted due to weak demand with companies not willing to invest despite low interest rates and consumers hurting due to large debts and stagnating wages.

Time for a new battle plan

Monetary policy was always likely to struggle to make much ground while there is little impetus to spend, let alone borrow.  This shortfall could be overcome by the government which fixes problems, from crime to pollution, that are caused by others.  Keeping the economy ticking over when spending would otherwise be weak would prevent more damage being done to the economy.  Otherwise, the economy becomes less productive as firms stop investing in new technologies and the skills of people out of work deteriorate.

It seems an even more obvious solution at a time when there is so much that the government could spend its money on such as improving Internet access, accelerating the uptake of renewable energy, and updating transport infrastructure.  The low interest rates provide the perfect opportunity to invest for the future especially when companies are not up to doing so.  Investment projects could be set up to boost output in the economy for a few years until spending from other picks up the slack. 

A winning strategy

Despite the still faltering economic recovery, governments loathe changing direction and austerity continues to reign in Europe and the UK (as well as US to a lesser extent).  Moves to fix government finances made sense following the jump in interest rates on government debt in the Eurozone but this turmoil in the financial markets has long passed.  Weak overall spending and the threat of deflation setting in is now the dominant problem facing many countries. 

Higher spending by the government that lifted the productivity of the economy could be funded through borrowing at low interest rates and repaid through higher taxes that a more efficient economy would generate.  This is the opposite of what is happening in the UK where austerity is hurting the economy and efforts to reduce the government deficit are being thwarted due to a fall in money from taxes. 

There is still time for a change of strategy to have an impact in the fight for an economy recovery that improves the lives of us all.  Even if it is too late, investing for the future when interest rates are at record lows seems like a no brainer.  A change is due as this is a battle that no one wants to lose.