Category Archives: Finance

2020 “Globie”: The Carry Trade

Leave a reply

It is time to announce the recipient of this year’s “Globie”, i.e., the Globalization Book of the Year. The award gives me a chance to draw attention to a book that is particularly insightful about some aspect of globalization. This year’s winner is The Rise of Carry: The Dangerous Consequences of Volatility Suppression and the New Financial Order of Decaying Growth and Recurring Crisis by Tim Lee, Jamie Lee and Kevin Coldiron. The prize lacks any monetary reward, but no doubt the distinction of having won has value in itself. Previous winners are listed at the bottom.

The classic carry trade involves borrowing and investing in different currencies. For many years the Japanese yen served as the source of cheap loans that could then be exchanged for Australian dollars that yielded a higher return. At the end of the period the dollars would be exchanged for yen, and the loan repaid. As long as the funding currency had not appreciated in value, the trader would profit from the difference in returns. A profitable carry trade, however, violates uncovered interest rate parity, which stipulates that any difference in returns should be offset by an expected appreciation of the funding currency. At times the currencies would realign, and purchasing the originating currency to repay the loan could eliminate any previous gains.

The authors extend the concept of carry trades to include all those transactions that provide a stream of income but are subject to the risk of “…a sudden loss when a particular event occurs or when underlying asset values change substantially.”  Since carry transactions are based on borrowing, leverage is a key component. Buying stock on margin, for example, is another form of carry trade, as is a private equity leveraged buyout.

The trader benefits only as long as asset prices remain close to their current levels. Volatility can wipe out a position, and the financial losses can spill over to the economy. Those negative consequences bring central banks into the financial markets. Their intervention may reestablish stability, but it allows those who would have suffered a loss to transfer that loss to the public sector. Central bankers acting as lenders of last resort, the authors write, “…underwrite some of the losses associated with carry. This encourages further growth of carry, and a self-reinforcing cycle develops.”

The authors investigate the spread of carry trade and its broad scope, including the transformation of global financial markets. Firms in emerging markets use capital markets to obtain finance from cheaper foreign sources. Changes in the VIX measure of volatility have international reverberations and engender global financial cycles.The Federal Reserve’s use of swap facilities to help their counterparts in other countries assist domestic institutions that face a dollar liquidity squeeze demonstrates that carry crashes require global responses.

The authors also claim that the carry trade increases income and wealth inequality, as only those with sufficient assets engage in carry and profit from central bank intervention.  The continuing returns from these transactions flow to those who know how the system works and how to exploit it. These rewards act as an incentive to draw more people to finance, contributing to the growth of the financial sector.

The book was written before the events of this year, but the analysis is very relevant. In March, financial markets crashed as the global extent of the pandemic became evident. Stock prices plunged and foreign capital fled emerging markets. This outbreak of volatility engendered a massive response by the Federal Reserve that dwarfed their actions in the 2008-09 crisis (see here and here for overviews of central bank policies). The markets responded by regaining lost ground, and the Standard & Poor’s 500 has set new highs.

After the latest meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve reiterated its pledge to keep  the target range for the Federal Funds Rate at 0 to ¼% “…until labor market conditions have reached levels consistent with the Committee’s assessments of maximum employment and inflation has risen to 2 percent and is on track to moderately exceed 2 percent for some time.” The Fed’s commitment to low interest rates provides an incentive for more carry trade activities, and these are appearing. Special Purpose Acquisition Company (SPACS), for example, are pools of money that are established to purchase privately-held firms and take them public, profiting from the IPO price. The SPACS investors do not know which company will be acquired or when, and they may not realize a return for years. But they are providing liquidity, and at minimal cost due to the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy.

Lee, Lee and Coldiron convincingly demonstrate that the carry trade has contributed to the financialization of the economy, which has grave and disturbing implications. As the subtitle of the book indicates, the suppression of volatility leads to lower growth and recurring crises. When a vaccine for the coronavirus is available, there will undoubtedly be a burst of financial activity that will prepare the way for the next crisis. We will not be able to say that we were never warned.

An interview with the authors is available on the podcast Hidden Forces.

2019    Branko Milanovic, Capitalism Alone: the Future of the System That Rules the World

2018    Adam Tooze,  Crashed: How a Decade of Financial Crises Changed the World

2017    Stephen D. King, Grave New World: The End of Globalization, the Return of History

2016    Branko Milanovic, Global Inequality

2015    Benjamin J. Cohen. Currency Power: Understanding Monetary Rivalry

The Guardians of the Financial Galaxy

Leave a reply

The rapid expansion of the pandemic and the ensuing economic and financial collapses brought about responses by policymakers, including actions undertaken on an international basis. The Federal Reserve acted together with other central banks to ensure that an adequate supply of dollars was available to support dollar-based financing outside the U.S. Similarly, the IMF moved rapidly to provide financial support to its members. These national and international institutions constitute a “two tier” system in international finance that occupies the role of lender of last resort.

International cooperation has occurred before, and Michael Bordo of Rutgers University gives an account of these efforts in a new NBER working paper, “Monetary Policy Coordination an Global Financial Crises in Historical Perspective.” During the Bretton Woods era, central banks cooperated to sustain the fixed exchange rate system. In 1962, the U.S. established bilateral currency swaps with foreign central banks, which provided dollars to be used in support of their exchange rates.

The swaps continued in the 1970s after the termination of the Bretton Woods regime as policymakers sought to control the volatility of exchange rates. During the early and mid-1980s there were episodes of coordination of foreign exchange market intervention by central banks as governments in the advanced economies sought to stabilize the value of the dollar. But these occurred less frequently in the late 1980s as inflation fell in most of these countries and foreign exchange market intervention became less common.

The outbreak of crises in emerging markets in the 1990s required a joint response, and the IMF took on the role of crisis manager. During the Asian crisis of 1997-98, for example, the Fund provided credit to the governments of the countries in crisis. Their programs included conditions that required included cutbacks in government spending and credit creation, and frequently a currency devaluation. However, the IMF’s policies came under immediate criticism as inappropriate and overly severe. These were not crises based on excessive government spending, but rather financial collapses. The IMF paid a high price in its reputation for its handling of the Asian crisis, but learned a valuable lesson: financial instability can impose a serious cost.

The financial crisis of 2007-09 provided another major challenge to global financial stability and the need for a coordinated response. Banks in Europe and Japan had borrowed dollars to acquire dollar-denominated assets, such as mortgage-based securities. Their access to dollar funding was threatened as the interbank markets for dollars came under strain. In December of 2007, the Federal Reserve announced that it was establishing swap lines with the European Central Bank and the Swiss National Bank. At the crisis escalated in 2008, the Federal Reserve set up similar arrangements with the central banks of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. It also arranged swap arrangements with the central banks of Brazil, Mexico, Korea and Singapore, emerging market economies with substantial exposure to dollar-based financing. The Federal Reserve and the foreign central banks exchanged currencies, and the foreign central banks lent the dollars to its domestic banks that needed them. At the conclusion of the swap period, the currency exchanges were reversed using the same exchange rate, and the central banks would pay the Fed a fee based on what it had charged their own banks.

These arrangements differed from previous efforts in that they were designed to address financial instability, not exchange rate values. The dollar had become the primary global funding currency, so a decrease in dollar liquidity would have had widespread effects. The joint activities of the Federal Reserve and its partner central banks were successful in bringing down the cost of dollar lending in the foreign markets and avoiding the collapse of foreign institutions with dollar liabilities.

The IMF was also active during the crisis. Not all central banks were able to exchange currencies with the Federal Reserve, and the IMF served as an alternative source of financing. During the period from September 2008 through the following summer, the IMF instituted 17 Stand-By Arrangements. The economic policies that were part of these programs reflected an awareness of the origin and severity of the global downturn. Credit was disbursed more quickly and in larger amounts than had occurred in the past and there were fewer conditions attached to the programs. Consequently, the IMF’s record during the great recession was very different from that of the Asian financial crisis.

During the current crisis, central banks and the IMF have built upon and expanded the policies they undertook in 2008-09. Once again, global dollar financing came under strain. In March the Federal Reserve renewed or set up swap facilities with the central banks of 14 countries. In addition, it established a repurchase facility for foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA) that would allow them to temporarily exchange their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities for dollars.

These efforts were successful in preventing a collapse of dollar financing. Nicola Cetorelli, Linda S. Goldberg and Fabiola Ravazzolo of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York investigated the impact of the Federal Reserve’s facilities by comparing the foreign exchange swap basis spreads of currencies covered by the agreements with those on other currencies. They found that  ”… the swap lines have been an important factor helping to improve market conditions and expand access to dollar liquidity during the period of peak strains in global U.S. dollar funding markets.” They added that the Federal Reserve was engaging in a wide range of other actions that could also have impacted this market.

The central banks that obtained the dollars were able to use them to support banks that provided dollars to other parties in their countries. For example, Gianluca Persi of the European Central Bank showed that the Eurosystems’s use of the swap lines”…not only helped banks to satisfy their immediate U.S. dollar funding needs but also supported market activity.” He concludes that “The swap lines between central banks therefore helped to mitigate the effects of the strains in the U.S. dollar funding market.”

The IMF has also been active in meeting the needs of its members. The IMF has used its rapid financial assistance programs (Rapid Financing Instrument, Rapid Credit Facility) to make loans to 76 countries. These loans do not require full programs or reviews, and carry little conditionality. The IMF is also adjusting existing programs to meet the need for health-related expenditures.

The IMF is making special efforts for its low-income members. It is providing grants to its poorest members to cover the IMF debt obligations. In March the IMF and World Bank called on official bilateral creditors to suspend debt service payments from low-income countries. The Group of 20 governments responded by agreeing to suspend repayment of official bilateral credit from these nations until the end of 2020. The IMF, the World Bank and the G20 also called for private sector creditors to participate in similar debt relief on comparable terms.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva at the opening of this spring’s meeting pledged to use the Fund’s  $1 trillion lending capacity to support its members. She also urged governments to be active in addressing the needs of their citizens. In a speech at the London School of Economics on October 6, she pointed out that “flexible and forward-leaning fiscal policy will be critical for the recovery to take hold.” She also called for measures to deal with the debt of low-income countries, including “access to more grants, concessional credit and debt relief, combined with better debt management and transparency.”

A division of labor, therefore, has evolved between the Federal Reserve and the IMF during periods of widespread instability. The Federal Reserve provides dollars to other central banks in upper-income countries and selected emerging market economies to preserve stability in the global financial markets. Since the Federal Reserve lends to central banks, there is little concern about insolvency. In many ways it assumes the traditional role of lender of last resort as conceived by Bagehot and other nineteenth century economists.

In normal times the IMF lends to governments in middle- and low-income countries with balance of payments crises and possible insolvency. The Fund disburses credit in programs that operate over a time horizon at least a year and sometimes longer. However, during the global financial crisis and now the current crisis, the IMF ramps up its lending. It provides credit quickly at little if any cost, and its programs seek to stabilize economic activity. Moreover, the IMF takes public positions to advocate fiscal stimulus and debt relief.

Stanley Fischer, who served as First Deputy Managing Director of the IMF from 1994 to 2001, saw the need for an international lender of last resort for countries facing an external financial crisis, and claimed that the IMF had played that role in the 1980s and 1990s. In subsequent years it became clear that central bankers in advanced economies preferred to deal with each other and organize their own programs. There have been periodic calls for the IMF to become more involved in swap networks, but the central banks have shown no interest in involving the IMF in their networks. The two-tier system functioned relatively well in 2008-09 and to date has stabilized financial markets. But the number of coronavirus cases are surging, and there are concerns about another recession in the U.S. and Europe. The current system to back stop financial markets and institutions will be tested in new ways that may show its limitations.

After the Global Financial Crisis: Are We Safe Now?

Leave a reply

A decade after the global financial crisis the global economy seems (finally) to be enjoying a robust recovery. Economic growth is widespread and includes increased expenditures on investment, a sign that business firms expect continuing demand for their products. With the crisis finally behind us, we can revisit it to reassess its causes and the response. We can also ask whether our ability to respond to another crisis is adequate.

Reappraisals of the roots of the crisis have focused on the fragility of the financial sector, and the consequences of inadequate capital and liquidity shortfalls. Low interest rates due in part to foreign savings contributed to a rise in housing prices in the U.S., and the extension of mortgage loans to borrowers who sought to profit from further price increases. Bankers were willing to extend credit in part because they could pass along any risk through the sale of mortgage-backed securities, in some cases to financial firms in Europe. Credit booms in the housing sector also occurred in other countries, most notably Ireland and Spain.

But by 2007 as interest rates and the price of servicing the debt rose, housing prices stalled and mortgage borrowers who expected capital gains began to exit the market. The mortgage-backed securities lost their value, which led to a chain of liquidations of positions that pushed their prices further down. In the summer of 2008 the federal government was forced to take over the government-sponsored agencies, the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”), that were active in the secondary market for mortgage securities. The failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 signaled a financial collapse that quickly spread to Europe.

In the aftermath of the crisis there was a wave of new rules in the financial sector. National bank regulators acting together at the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision revised capital adequacy ratios. In the U.S. the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was enacted to overhaul and update our regulatory rules and institutions. The bill consolidated government supervisory agencies, extended their reach and introduced new tools, including a mechanism to allow the orderly closure of financial companies that have failed. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was established to prevent the predatory mortgage and other lending practices that had contributed to the crisis.

While national leaders were criticized at the time for an initially fumbling response, Daniel Drezner of the Fletcher School at Tufts University appraised the macroeconomic and financial policies undertaken at the time of the crisis and concluded that the system “worked,” i.e., the policy measures undertaken adverted a much worse outcome. The leaders of the Group of 20 nations (the successor to the Group of 7) agreed to increase government spending and to expand the resources of the International Monetary Fund to allow it to lend to a range of countries. Just as importantly, they also agreed to refrain from implementing trade barriers or engaging in competitive exchange rate depreciations. The Federal Reserve, aware of the central role of the dollar, instituted swap agreements with foreign central banks that enabled them to assist their banks with dollar obligations.

Ten years later, is the global economy safe from another financial meltdown? If one did occur, could we respond as aggressively? Because of the slow recovery, credit growth does not seem excessive—with the significant exception of China. Global stock markets, on the other hand, continue to set new records. The U.S. cyclically adjusted price earnings ratio has reached a level only seen in 1929 and during the “tech bubble,” leading inevitably to explanations of why this time the valuation is justified. Bitcoin, supposedly a new form of currency, continues to draw investors with a scarce understanding of what they are purchasing, and many are doing so by borrowing on their credit cards. A collapse in prices could lead to an unraveling of positions and a new round of liquidations that could extend into other financial markets.

Unfortunately, central banks will have limited room to respond. While the Federal Reserve is increasing the Federal Funds rate, it currently stands at only 1.50%. But even this is higher than the Bank of England’s target rate of 0.5% or the European Central Bank’s 0.0%. Central banks could return to quantitative easing operations but they would be beginning with much larger balance sheets than they had in 2008. A fiscal stimulus would be effective in the event of an economic contraction, but the U.S. has just enacted tax cuts that are expected to add $1.5 trillion to the federal debt. How would financial markets respond if a new downturn lowered tax revenues further as the government sought to increase spending?

Moreover, the financial sector in advanced economies is just as large as it was before the crisis. The size of financial sectors has been cited as a cause of concern by economists at the Bank for International Settlements and also a team at the IMF. The latter paper finds: “The effects of financial development on growth and stability show that there are tradeoffs, since at some point the costs outweigh the benefits.” There seems little doubt that we reached that point years ago.

There also seems to be no recognition of the fragility of the financial sector, and the threat it can pose. The success of governments in preventing a recurrence of the Great Depression precluded a public accounting of the causes of the crisis and the dangers of financial excess. A recent column in The Economist concluded:

“The success of the response to the downturn helped avoid some of the disasters of the 1930s. But it also left the fundamentals of the system that produced the crisis unchanged. Ten years on, the hopes of radical reform are all but dashed. The sad upshot is that the global economy may have the opportunity to relearn the lessons of the past rather sooner than hoped.”

If such a disaster occurs, it is difficult to imagine how the current administration in the U.S. would respond. There is no sense of common purpose or even an acknowledgement of the global interdependence of economies. Economic nationalism during a period of volatility will surely set off a round of tit-for-tat responses that in the end would leave no country better off.

In the meantime the financial sector enjoys continuing growth in earnings and the U.S. Congress is preparing to loosen some of the Dodd-Frank banking restrictions. But, as Martin Wolf of the Financial Times has warned, “The world at the beginning of 2018 presents a contrast between its depressing politics and its improving economics.” Markets can and do change rapidly,and there are many potential sources of disruption. And the greatest danger is always the one you do not see coming.

Can Systemic Financial Risk Be Contained?

1 Reply

Risk aversion is a basic human characteristic, and in response to it we seek to safeguard the world live in. We mandate airbags and safety belts for automobile driving, set standards for the handling and shipment of food, build levees and dams to control floods, and regulate financial transactions and institutions to avoid financial collapses. But Greg Ip in Foolproof shows that our best attempts at avoiding catastrophes can fail, and even bring about worse disasters than those that motivate our attempts to avoid them. Drivers who feel safer with antilock brakes drive more quickly and leave less space between cars, while government flood insurance encourages building houses on plains that are regularly flooded.

Is the financial sector different? The traditional measures implemented to avoid financial failures are based on attaining macroeconomic stability. Monetary policy was used to control inflation, and when necessary, respond to shocks that destabilized the economy. When a crisis did emerge, the primary responsibility of a central bank was to act as a lender of last resort, providing funds to institutions that were solvent but illiquid. There was a vigorous debate before the global crisis of 2008-09 over whether central banks should attempt to deflate asset bubbles, but most central bankers did not believe that this was an appropriate task.

Fiscal policy was seen as more limited in its ability to combat business downturns because of lags in its design, implementation and effect. A policy that established a balanced budget over the business cycle, thus limiting the buildup of public debt, was often considered the best that could be expected. Automatic stabilizers, therefore, were set up to respond to cyclical fluctuations.

In open economies, flexible exchange rates provided some insulation against foreign shocks, and avoided the dangers that a commitment to a fixed rate entailed. Countries that did fix, or at least manage, their exchange rates stockpiled foreign exchange reserves to forestall speculative attacks. IMF surveillance provided an external perspective on domestic policies, while IMF lending could supplement foreign exchange reserves.

The global financial crisis demonstrated that these measures were inadequate to provide financial stability. The Federal Reserve led the way in implementing new monetary policies—quantitative easing—to supplement lower policy rates that faced a zero lower bound. But policymakers also responded with a broad range of innovative financial regulations. A new type of regulation—macroprudential—was introduced to minimize systemic financial risk, i.e., the risk associated with the collapse of a financial system (as opposed to the microprudential risk of the failure of an individual institution). These measures seek to prevent speculative rises in asset prices and credit creation, and the establishment of risky balance sheet positions. They include limits on interest rate and foreign exchange mismatches on balance sheets, caps on bank loan to value ratios, and countercyclical capital requirements (see here for an overview of these measures).

In the international sector, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision produced “Basel III,” a new set of regulations designed to strengthen the resilience of its members’  banking systems. Capital control measures, once viewed as hindrances to the efficient allocation of savings, are now seen as useful in limiting inflows of foreign funds that contribute to asset bubbles. Swap lines allow central banks to draw upon each other for foreign exchange to meet the demand from domestic institutions, while the IMF has sought to make borrowing more user-friendly. Meetings of the member governments of the newly-formed Group of 20 allow them to coordinate their policies, while the IMF’s surveillance purview has expanded to include regional and global developments.

Are these measures sufficient? The lack of another global crisis to date is too easy a criterion, given that the recovery is still underway. But there may be inherent problems in the behavior of financial market participants that could frustrate policies that seek to prevent or at least contain financial crises. Moral hazard is often blamed for shoddy decision-making by those who think they can dodge the consequences of their actions. Many who were involved in the creation and sale of collaterized securities may have thought that the government would step in if there were a danger of a breakdown in these markets. But many banks held onto these securities, indicating that they thought that the reward of owning the securities outweighed the risks. Bank officials who oversaw the expansion of mortgage lending generally lost their jobs (and reputations). It is difficult to believe after the crisis that anyone thought that they could manipulate the government into absorbing all the consequences of their actions.

But if moral hazard is not always at fault, there is ample evidence that asymmetric information and behavioral anomalies result in hazardous behavior. Will the regulatory provisions listed above minimize the incidence of risky financial practices? There is some evidence that the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are working. But the regulatory framework continues to be implemented, and bankers and other financial market participants will always seek to find loopholes that they can exploit.

Regulatory practices on the international level are also subject to manipulation. Roman Goldbach, a political economist at Deutsche Bundesbank, in his book Global Governance and Regulatory Failure: The Political Economy of Banking points out that the overlap of national and global standards in what he calls the “transnational regulatory regime” results in layering “gaps.” The resulting loopholes in the policymaking process allow private interest coalitions to have a disproportionate influence on policy formulation. Moreover, policy officials consider the competitiveness of domestic financial structures as a goal (at least) equal to financial stability in international negotiations over regulatory standards. While there have been substantial changes since the global crisis, including the formation of the Financial Stability Board, the incentives in the governance structure of global finance have not changed.

Even regulations that work as intended may have unintended and unwanted consequences due to externalities. Kristin Forbes of MIT and Marcel Fratzscher, Thomas Kostka and Roland Straub of the European Central Bank examined Brazil’s tax on capital inflows from 2006 to 2011. They found that the tax did cause investors to decrease their portfolio allocation to Brazilian securities, as planned. But other countries also felt the impact of the tax. Foreign investors increased their allocation to economies that had some similarities to Brazil, while cutting back on those countries that were likely to impose their own control measures. Capital control measures that are imposed unilaterally, therefore, may only divert risky funds elsewhere, and are not a tool for controlling global financial risk.

The flow of money looking for higher yields outside the U.S. may diminish in the wake of the rise in the Federal Funds rate in the U.S. But Lukasz Rachel and Thomas D. Smith of the Bank of England claim that long-term factors account for a decline in the global real interest rate that will not be soon reversed. This poses a challenge for policymakers, as measures implemented in one country to contain a domestic credit boom may be undermined by foreign inflows. Domestic actions, therefore, ideally would be matched by similar measures in other countries, which would require macroprudential policy coordination.

Barry Eichengreen of UC-Berkeley has studied the record of international policy coordination, and finds that it works best under four sets of circumstances: when the coordination is centered on technical issues, such as central bank swaps; when the process is institutionalized; when it is aimed at preserving an existing set of policies, i.e., regime preserving, rather than devising new procedures; and when there exists a sense of mutual interests on a broad set of issues among the participants. Are such conditions present today? At the time of the crisis, central bankers cooperated in setting up the currency swap agreements while discussing their monetary policies. The formation of the Group of 20 provided a new forum for regular consultation, and there was widespread agreement in preserving a regime that encouraged international trade while preventing competitive currency devaluations. But the passage of time has weakened many of the commitments made when the crisis threatened, and the uneven recovery has caused national interests to diverge.

Perhaps a more basic issue is whether it is possible to design a financial system free of volatility. A government that is willing to replace markets in directing financial flows and allocating financial returns can maintain stability, but at a price. Such a system is characterized as “financial repression,” and includes limits on interest rates received by savers, control of banks and their lending, and the use of regulations to prevent capital flows. These regulations penalize household savers, and allow the government and state-sponsored enterprises to receive credit at relatively low rates while blocking credit to firms that do not enjoy government backing.

China used these types of measures during the 1980s and 1990s to finance its investment- and export-led growth, and its self-imposed financial isolation allowed it to escape the effects of the Asian financial crisis. But more recently China has engaged in financial liberalization, removing controls on interest rates and bank activities while deregulating its capital account and allowing more exchange rate flexibility. The responses have included the emergence of a shadow banking system and a boom in private credit, which will require government actions to avoid a crisis.

Several years ago Romain Rancière of the Paris School of Economics, Aaron Tornell of the University of California-Los Angeles and Frank Westermann of Osnabrueck University coauthored a paper (here; working paper here) on the tradeoff between systemic financial crises and economic growth. They showed that financial liberalization leads to more growth and a higher incidence of crises. But their empirical estimates indicated that the direct effect on growth outweighed the negative impact of the crises. They contrasted the examples of Thailand, which had a history of lending booms and crises with that of India, which had a more controlled financial sector, and showed that Thailand had enjoyed higher growth in per capita GDP. In a subsequent paper (here; working paper here), they explored the relationship between crises that produced a negative skewness in the growth of real credit, which in turn had a negative link with growth.

If there is a tradeoff between the volatility associated with financial liberalization and economic growth, then each society must choose the optimal combination of the two. Financial innovations will change the terms of the tradeoff, and lead to movements back and forth as we learn more about the risks of new financial tools. The advantages of novel instruments at the time when they seem most productive must be weighed against the possible (but unknown) dangers they pose. Perhaps the greatest threat is that the decisions over how much control and regulation is needed will be made not by those public officials entrusted with preserving financial stability, but by those who will profit most from the changes.