Tag Archives: Federal Reserve

The Global Financial Cycle and Emerging Market Economies

Leave a reply

The Federal Reserve’s latest increase in its policy rate is a signal of its desire to reestablish its credibility after U.S. inflation rose to 8.6% in May, and a precursor of more hikes.  Similar increases have been implemented by the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank, and the European Central Bank has announced that an increase in its policy rate will occur in July.  These and other policy moves by central bankers indicate that we are in a new global financial cycle (GFC), which will have wide-ranging implications for emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs).

Maurice Obstfeld of UC-Berkeley and former chief economist of the IMF explains the linkages between monetary policy in advanced economies and economic activity in other countries in a Peterson Institute Working Paper, “The International Financial System after COVID-19.” Recent research has shown that U.S. financial conditions and Federal Reserve monetary policy, as well as conditions and policies in other advanced economies, affect asset prices, capital flows and commodity prices across a broad range of economies, evidence of a global financial cycle.

Researchers have devised measures of the cycle and studied its behavior. An index of global financial conditions shows a close correlation with output in the EMDEs. Part of this linkage is exerted via the dollar’s exchange rate, which appreciates in response to higher U.S. interest rates. Obstfeld lists several mechanisms that drive the relationship (see also here). He cites the impact of dollar appreciation on the tightening of trade finance credit, the role of the dollar as a safe haven during periods of heightened risk aversion, the contractionary impact of a stronger dollar on export demand when exports are denominated in dollars, a global decline in investment and a fall in real commodity prices. Exchange rate flexibility can mitigate the impact of shocks in the global financial cycle, but spillover effects are always present.

Obstfeld warns that higher interest rates in the advanced economies will affect the EMDEs. While the levels of government debt to GDP in many EMDEs are below those in most advanced economies, the rises in these ratios since the pandemic have been similar in magnitude. Refinancing will force these countries to deal with higher financing costs, and foreign-currency denominated debt adds another source of stress. Obstfeld cautions that one particular source of financial fragility is the concentration of sovereign debt on the balance sheets of banks in EMDEs.

An empirical assessment of the factors that drive capital flows to EMDEs is provided by Xichen Wang of the Chongqing Technology and Business University and Cheng Yan of the Essex Business School in their paper in the current IMF Economic Review, “Does the Relative Importance of the Push and Pull Factors of Foreign Capital Flows Vary Across Quantiles?  (working paper version here). They contrast the impact of “push” factors that are external to capital flow recipients and domestic “pull” factors on capital flows to 51 emerging markets. They use quantile analysis, which allows them to investigate the effect of the independent variables on different quantiles of the distribution of the dependent variable. The lower quantiles (such as the first 20%) are periods of relatively low capital flows, the median quantiles are tranquil and smooth periods, and the higher quantiles are periods of abundant capital financing.

The authors use several indicators of a GFC, including the U.S. 3-month Treasury bill rate deflated by U.S. inflation and the VIX index, which is based on the volatility of S&P 500 stock options. They also utiliized U. S. economic growth and average net capital flows to other countries in the region. For pull variables they utilized domestic variables, such as the domestic real interest rate, economic growth, public indebtedness, private credit expansion and the current account.

Wang and Yan’s results show that VIX and regional capital flows are highly significant for all the quantiles of gross capital inflows.  An increase in risk, as manifested in a rise in VIX, lowers capital flows to the emerging markets while an increase in capital flows to other countries in the region has a positive effect. Several of the domestic pull factors, such as economic growth and international reserves, are statistically significant at the lower quantiles, but their significance diminishes in the higher quantiles. Foreign investors pay attention to domestic conditions when capital flows are relatively limited.

The authors also present results for disaggregated capital flows (FDI, portfolio equity, portfolio debt, bank). The significance of VIX remains for all forms of capital, including FDI which is sometimes seen as less affected by global conditions. The domestic push factors are significant for the non-FDI flows at the lower quantiles, but not at the upper quantiles.

The authors conclude that policymakers need to pay attention to the manifestation of GFCs, as they can lead to a sudden fall in gross inflows. VIX has risen this year from 16.60 on January 3 to a high of 36.45 on March 7, and currently stands at 27.53. The nominal Treasury bill rate rose from 0.09% at the beginning pf the year and has risen to 1.59%.  But the rate of inflation rose from 7.5% to 8.6% over the same period, largely offsetting the rise in the nominal rate.

The World Bank has evaluated the prospects of the EMDES in the June edition of its Global Economic Prospects. They forecast a slowdown in economic growth in the EMDEs from 6.6% in 2021 to 3.4% this year, and warn that the war in Ukraine has increased the risk of a further negative adjustment. The World Bank also cites global financial conditions as a cause of concern:

“As global financing conditions tighten and currencies depreciate, debt distress—previously confined to low-income economies—is spreading to middle-income countries. The removal of monetary accommodation in the United States and other advanced economies, along with the ensuing increase in global borrowing costs, represents another significant headwind for the developing world.”

There is a well-established link, therefore, from monetary policies in the U.S. and other advanced economies to the rest of the global economy. As the Federal Reserve and its counterparts show their determination to face down inflation, they can trigger spillovers that exacerbate capital outflows from the EMDEs. The result will be a further deterioration in the economies of countries that have already endured a series of negative shocks.

When Safe Assets Are No Longer Safe

Leave a reply

The U.S. has long benefitted from its ability to issue “safe assets” to the rest of the world. These usually take the form of U.S. Treasury bonds, although there was a period before the 2008-09 global financial crisis when mortgage-backed securities with Triple A ratings were also used for this purpose. The inflow of foreign savings has offset the persistent current account deficits, and put downward pressure on interest rates. But what will happen if U.S. government bonds are no longer considered safe?

The word safe has been used to describe different aspects of financial securities. The U.S. government in the past was viewed as committed to meeting its debt obligations, although the political theater around Congressional passage of the federal debt limit has introduced a note of uncertainty. In an extreme case, the U.S., like other sovereign borrowers with their own currencies, has the ability to print dollars to make debt payments. However, there is also a constituency of U.S. bondholders who would vehemently object if they were paid in inflated dollars.

Safety has also been linked with liquidity. U.S. financial markets are deep and active. Moreover, there is little concern that the government will impose capital controls on these portfolio flows (although FDI is now being scrutinized to deny access to domestic technology). Therefore, foreign holders of U.S. Treasury bonds can be confident that they can sell their holdings without disrupting the bond markets and contributing to sudden declines in bond prices.

However, there has always been another implicit component of the safety feature of Treasury bonds. Bondholders expect that they can claim their assets whenever they need to use them. The decision by the U.S. and European governments to deny the Russian central bank access to its own reserves has shown that foreign holders of assets placed on deposit in the U.S. or the other G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, France, United Kingdom) may not be able to use these assets at precisely the times when they are most needed. The Russian central bank had accumulated about $585 billion, but approximately half of that amount is no longer available. The central bank still has access to about $80 billion held in China and $29 billion at international institutions, as well as its holdings of gold. But the latter will be hard to convert to foreign currency if potential buyers are concerned about retaliatory sanctions.

The loss of access deprives the Russian central bank of foreign currency that could have helped the government deal with sanctions on its foreign trade. Moreover, the monetary authorities have not been able to use their reserves to halt the rapid decline in the ruble’s value. The other sanctions, therefore, will have a deep impact on the Russian economy. The Institute of International Finance has issued a forecast of a drop in its GDP of 15% in 2022 and another decline the following year.

The use of sanctions to cut off a central bank’s access to its own reserves raises questions concerning the structure of the international financial system. Other central banks will reassess their holdings and consider alternatives to how they are held. But what other country has safe and liquid capital markets that are not subject to capital controls and are not vulnerable to U.S. and European sanctions?  The Chinese currency is used by some central banks, but it is doubtful that there will be a wide-spread transition from dollars to the renminbi.

Another concern has arisen regarding the ability of the U.S. government to meet its obligations. In order to satisfy a continued demand for safe assets, the government will need to continue to run budget deficits. But increases in the debt/GDP ratio leads to concerns about the creditworthiness of the government. This problem has been called a “new Triffin dilemma,” similar to the problem that emerged during the Bretton Woods era when the U.S. was pledged to be ready to exchange the dollar holdings of foreign central banks for gold. Economist Robert Triffin pointed out that the ability of the government to meet this obligation was threatened once the dollar liabilities of the U.S. exceeded its gold holdings. The “gold window” was finally shut in the summer of 1971 by President Richard Nixon.

These long-term concerns are arising just as the market for U.S. Treasury bonds has entered a new phase. The combination of higher inflation and changes in the Federal Reserve’s policy stance have led to increases in the rate of return on U.S. Treasury bonds to about 2.5%. With an annual increase in the CPI minus food and energy of approximately 6%, that leaves the real rate at -3.5%. Several more increases in the Federal Funds Rate will be needed to raise the real rate to positive values.

A fall in the demand for U.S. Treasury bonds by foreign banks and private holders would contribute to lower bond prices and higher yields. All this could affect the Federal Reserve’s policy moves if the Fed thought that it needed to factor lower foreign demand for Treasury bonds into their projections. Moreover, a shift from U.S. bonds would affect the financial account of the U.S., and the ability to run current account deficits.  The exchange rate would also be affected by such a transition.

None of these possible changes will take place in the short-run. Central bankers have more pressing concerns, such as the impact of higher food and fuel prices on domestic inflation rates, and foreign central bankers will focus on the changes in the Fed’s policies, as well as those of the European Central Bank. But the sanctions on the use of foreign reserve assets will surely lead to changes over time in the amounts of reserves held by central banks as well as their composition. The imposition of these measures may one day be seen as part of a wider change in the international financial system that marks the end of globalization as we have known it.

The Global Impact of the Fed’s Pivot on Asset Purchases

Leave a reply

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell announced last month that the Fed would slow its purchases of bonds, most likely by the end of this year. The timing of the cutback will depend on several factors related to the economy, and last week’s disappointing employment report if repeated could push back the date. The financial markets will now begin anticipating the impact of the reduction in the Fed’s asset holdings.

The origins of the increase in the Fed’s holdings of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securites can be traced back to the global financial crisis. The Fed’s assets grew from $870 billion in August 2007 to $2 trillion in early 2009. When the Fed introduced its quantitative easing program, it claimed that the purchases of bonds would lead to lower long-term interest rates more quickly than if it relied only on lowering the Federal Funds rate. In addition, the purchases showed the Fed’s commitment to keeping interest rates low in order to boost the economic recovery. This latter form of signaling was called “forward guidance.”

Subsequent quantitative easing programs eventually raised its holdings to $4.5 trillion by 2015. The Fed maintained that level until 2018, when it allowed its holdings to fall as bonds matured. But it reversed course in 2019, and the Fed responded to the pandemic in the spring of 2020 by ramping up its purchases of assets in order to support the financial markets. Its asset holdings now total about $8.3 trillion.

The Fed has not been alone in using asset purchases as a tool of policy. The European Central Bank increased its holdings of bonds during the period preceding the pandemic from 2 trillion Euros at the end of 2014 to 4.6 trillion Euros. It accelerated its purchases last year and now holds about 8.2 trillion Euros in assets. The Bank of Japan and the Bank of England have their own versions of asset purchase programs. Many of these central banks have also announced changes in the pace of their asset purchases.

When then Fed chair Ben Bernanke noted in 2013 that continued strengthening of the economy could lead to a cutback in asset purchases, this was interpreted as a sign that the Fed would also allow interest rates to rise. This led to the infamous “taper tantrum,” as financial markets overreacted to the prospects of higher interest rates. The response included capital outflows from emerging market countries such as India as their exchange rates depreciated and their own asset markets fell in value. Stability was eventually reestablished once the Fed clarified that it had no plans to enact a contractionary policy, but the incident demonstrated the volatility of financial markets, particularly in the emerging market countries.

Powell has sought to avoid such an outcome by explicitly delinking asset purchases from interest rates. He pledged to keep the Federal Funds rate at its current setting until “maximum employment and sustained 2% inflation” area achieved. The (lack of a)  response in the financial markets to Powell’s speech seemed to indicate that this promise was seen as credible, despite concerns about inflation.

But there will be consequences when the Fed cuts back on its asset purchases. The increases in the Fed’s balance sheet, as well as those of the other central banks, released a wave of liquidity with wide-ranging consequences. In the U.S. it has kept stock price valuations at elevated levels, which contributes to widening wealth inequality. For example, in 2019 families in the top 10% of the income distribution owned 70% of total stock values. Similarly, the provision of easy credit has contributed to rising housing prices that also reflects demand and supply conditions.

The increase in liquidity also benefited emerging markets and developing economies. In the period immediately before the pandemic the World Bank warned that the world had experienced a rise in debt, both private and government. Total debt in the emerging markets and developing economies had risen from 114% of their GDP in 2010 to 170% at the end of 2018. Part of this increase reflected accommodative monetary policies in the advanced economies and a search for higher yield by investors in those countries. A rising global demand for the bonds of the emerging market and developing economies countries was met by an increase in their issuance.

These countries suffered massive reversals of foreign capital in the spring of 2020. The “sudden stops” confirmed the existence of a global financial cycle that can overwhelm vulnerable economies. But the withdrawals were soon reversed, in part because investors were reassured by the rapid responses of central banks in the advanced economies to the financial meltdown.

There are many who voice concerns about the ending of the current financial cycle. Mohammed El-Erian, president of Queens’ College of Cambridge University, is worried about the excessive risk-taking that the financial sector has undertaken in response to its “unhealthy codependency” with central banks.  Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business is alarmed about the impact that future interest rate hikes could have on government finances. Jeremy Grantham of asset management firm GMO believes that the stock market will experience a massive crash. And IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva is concerned about a diveregence in the prospects of advanced economies and a few emerging markets versus those of most developing economies that could lead to a debt crisis.

Much of the impact of the policy changes at the Federal Reserve depends on how the financial markets respond to the slowdown in purchases, and whether the Fed is successful in delinking a cutback in asset purchases from its interest rate policy. The lack of a strong response in the bond markets suggests that there has not been a change in expectations of future interest rates. But ouside the U.S. there is always the prospect that a slowdown in economic growth and the continuation of the pandemic imperil the solvency of corporate and government borrowers. These developments would be enough to fuel a debt crisis despite the Fed’s careful footwork.

Will A Rise in Interest Rates Lead to a New Debt Crisis?

Leave a reply

The question of when the Federal Reserve will begin to reverse its loose policy stance continues to be a topic of widespread speculation. At last month’s meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee, its members showed a willingness to cut back on asset purchases in 2022 and to raise interest rates in 2023, but kept monetary policy on its current setting due to slower growth in employment than desired. The latest inflation reading may bring forward the Fed’s tightening measures. If and when interest rates do rise in the U.S. and other advaneced economies, what will be the impact for holders of foreign assets?

There is a split in opinions on the vulnerability of emerging market economies (EMEs) to rising interest rates. In an interview with Finance & Development, Richard House of Allianz Global Investors and David Lubin of Citibank played down the chances of a disruption of foreign markets when the Federal Reserve begins its reversal. They cite the increase in foreign exchange reserves and the decrease in the number of countries with fixed exchange rates as reasons why systemic crises can be avoided. In the same issue, however, Şebnem Kalemli-Özcan of the University of Maryland points out that country-dependent risk will affect the response to a new external environment. Many EMEs used monetary policy to finance their fiscal spending in response to the pandemic. There is a concern that their bond purchases and monetary creation could lead to higher inflation that will raise the cost of new financing at the same time as the U.S. is raising its interest rates.  

The author of the Buttonwood column of The Economist, however, notes that the central banks in several EMEs have already raised their policy rates in response to concerns of rising inflation following currency depreciations. Higher rates attract capital from foreign investors looking for higher yields, which strengthens the currency. An appreciating currency keeps down import prices and inflation in check.

Jasper Hoek and Emre Yoldas of the Federal Reserve Board and Steve Kamin of the American Enterprise Institute show that the response of emerging market economies to rising U.S. interest rates will depend in part on the reasons for the increase. If rates rise because of favorable economic growth in the U.S., then the EMEs should benefit from the increase in U.S. demand for their goods and increased investor confidence. If, on the other hand, the higher rates are due to higher inflation that requires a marked tightening of the U.S. policy stance, then interest rates on the debt of EME issuers will rise as their currencies fall in value.

The response to the pandemic in the EMEs is the biggest challenge those nations face.  While firms in the U.S. and Europe are busy meeting surging consumer demand, the virus continues to spread in Africa, South American and South Asia. The response in advanced economies to a recovery that brings with it higher inflation may threaten the ability of the EMEs’ policymakers to maintain their accommodative stance. Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, warns: “… it could be hard for EME policymakers to maintain accommodative policy stances should global financial conditions tighten materially. But tighter policy will make economic recovery even more difficult.”

The record of responses to Federal Reserve policy retrenchment is not encouraging. In May 2013, then Fed Chair Ben Bernanke responded to a question at a Congressional committee meeting about future Fed policy by noting that “If we see continued improvement and we have confidence that that’s going to be sustained then we could in the next few meetings … take a step down in our pace of purchases.” This innocuous remark led to turbulence in the financial markets, which became known as the “taper tantrum.” Increases in the Federal Funds Rate in 2018 under Fed Chair Jerome Powell met widespread criticism and concerns about their impact on slow economic growth, and the Federal Reserve reversed course in 2019.

Economists can always provide well-reasoned narratives as to how and why financial markets respond to events. Unfortunately, market volatility is almost always unanticipated. No matter how careful policymakers are with their statements, there is the potential for an unforeseen response. The continuation of the pandemic heightens the uncertainty, and the current elevated levels of stock prices and the increase in debt leaves asset markets vulnerable to a “Minsky moment” when an initial reversal leads to a demand for liquidity and cascading falls in financial markets. The EMEs will become part of the collateral damage of such a collapse.

The Challenges to the Dollar

1 Reply

The dollar’s position as the premier global currency has long seemed secure. The dollar accounts for about 60% of the foreign exchange reserves of central banks and similar proportions of international debt and loans. But recent developments raise the possibility of a transition to a stratified world economy in which the use of other currencies for regional trade and finance becomes more common.

Such a statement may seem to be inconsistent with the Federal Reserve’s activities to stabilize global financial markets. As it did during the global financial crisis of 2008-09, the Fed has activated currency swap lines with other central banks, including those of the Eurozone, Great Britain, Japan, Canada and Switzerland, as well as the monetary authorities of South Korea, Mexico and Singapore. Those central banks that do not have swap agreements can borrow dollars from the Fed via its new foreign and international monetary authorities (FIMA) facility. Under this program, central banks that need dollars for their domestic financial institutions exchange U.S. Treasury securities for dollars through a repurchase agreement. These moves accompany the Fed’s extensive range of activities to support the U.S. economy, which include cutting the federal funds rate to zero, purchasing large amounts of Treasury, mortgage backed and corporate securities, and lending to corporations and state and municipal governments.

But other governments are uneasy with the U.S. government’s use of the dollar’s position in international finance to enforce compliance with its foreign policy goals. International transactions in dollars are cleared through the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) banking network and the Clearing House Interbank Payments System (CHIPS). The U.S. has denied foreign banks access to these systems when they wanted to penalize the banks for dealing with governments or companies that the U.S. seeks to punish. This practice has become more common under the Trump administration, which has used the sanctions to strike at Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela and others.

European leaders have made clear that they find this use of the dollar’s international role no longer acceptable. When the U.S. abandoned the agreements on nuclear weapons with Iran, European banks were forced to choose between defying the U.S. or their own governments, which encouraged them to continue their ties with Iran. In response, Britain, France and Germany have founded a clearing house, Instex, to serve as an alternative system, and several other European Union members will join it. Moreover, if the Europeans proceed with the issuance of a common EU bond, there will be an alternative safe asset to U.S. Treasury bonds that will foster the use of the euro in foreign exchange reserves.

China is also moving to encourage the international acceptance of its currency as an alternative to the dollar. The Chinese bond market is the world’s second largest, and the foreign appetite for Chinese bonds has increased. Foreigners bought $60 billion of Chinese government bonds last year, and now hold 8.8% of these bonds. Some of these bonds will be held by central banks diversifying the composition of their foreign currency reserves.

China’s Belt and Road Initiatives have expanded its economic presence in emerging markets, which also leads to a wider usage of its currency. Chinese investments in infrastructure and other projects in these countries increase the usage of the renminbi, as will the trade that follows.  The number of banks processing payments in renminbi has grown greatly in recent years, and most of these banks are based in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.

There are obstacles to the wider use of both the euro and the renminbi. While Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel has voiced support of a common European bond, the heads of other European governments have expressed their concerns.  China continues to maintain capital controls, although it has allowed foreigners to invest in the bond market through Hong Kong. But the imposition of a new security law for Hong Kong raises concerns about China’s willingness to allow financial concerns to affect its political goals.

The euro was once more widely seen as a viable alternative to the dollar. Hiro Ito and Cesar Rodriguez of Portland State University in their recent research paper, “Clamoring for Greenbacks: Explaining the Resurgence of the U.S. Dollar in International Debt”, examine the determinants of the currency composition of international debt securities. In their analysis they undertake a counterfactual analysis to examine what would have happened to the shares of the dollar and the euro in the composition of these securities if the global financial crisis had not occurred. They report that the predicted share of the euro in international debt would have been higher than it actually has been, while the share of the dollar would be lower.

When Ito and Rodriguez wrote their paper, they forecast that the dollar would continue to be the dominant international currency. But the Trump administration has damaged the international standing of the U.S., and this will have long-term consequences. Benjamin J. Cohen of UC-Santa Barbara has pointed out that “…there is palpable resentment over Trump’s indiscriminate use of financial sanctions to punish countries…” More generally, the U.S. government has sought to limit the county’s international interactions.

Harold James of Princeton wrote about the dominance of the dollar after the global financial crisis in his book, The Creation and Destruction of Value: the Globalization Cycle, which was published in 2009. At that time he foresaw the central role of the dollar as continuing because of the “political and military might of the U.S.”, as well as its economic potential. But he also stated that:

 “Such concentrations of power can be self-sustaining when they attract not only the capital resources, but also the human resources (primarily through skilled immigration) that allow exceptional productivity growth to continue.”

James warned that if a country closes itself off from exchanges with other nations, its relative decline can be hastened. He pointed out that:

“Since the isolationist impulse is a major strand in the American political tradition, it is impossible to close off this possibility; in fact, its likelihood increases as the economic and political situation deteriorates.”

The pandemic has the potential of serving as an inflection point, which follows a period of confrontations with other countries over trade. The fumbled response of the U.S. to the pandemic will encourage the governments of Europe and China to extend their influence in the financial sphere.  A world with several dominant currencies need not be inferior to one with a single hegemonic currency. But it will come about in large part as a result of the self-inflected damage that the Trump administration has perpetrated on the international standing of the U.S.

The Coming Debt Crisis

Leave a reply

After the 2008-09 global financial crisis, economists were criticized for not predicting its coming. This charge was not totally justified, as there were some who were concerned about the run-up in asset prices. Robert Schiller of Yale, for example, had warned that housing prices had escalated to unsustainable levels. But the looming debt crisis in the emerging market economies has been foreseen by many, although the particular trigger—a pandemic—was not.

Last year the World Bank released Global Waves of Debt: Causes and Consequences, written by M. Ayhan Kose, Peter Nagle, Franziska Ohnsorge and Naotaka Sugawara. The authors examined a wave of debt buildup that began in 2010. By 2018 total debt in the emerging markets and developing economies (EMDE) had risen by 54 percentage points to 168% of GDP. Much of this increase reflected a rise in corporate debt in China, but even excluding China debt reached a near-record level of 107% of GDP in the remaining countries.

The book’s authors compare the recent rise in the EMDE’s debt to other waves of debt accumulation during the last fifty years. These include the debt issued by governments in the 1970s and 1980s, particularly in Latin America; a second wave from 1990 until the early 2000s that reflected borrowing by banks and firms in East Asia and governments in Europe and Central Asia; and a third run-up in private borrowing via bank loans in Europe and Central Asia in the early 2000s. All these previous waves ended in some form of crisis that adversely affected economic growth.

While the most recent increase in debt shares some features with the previous waves such as low global interest rates, the report’s authors state that it has been “…larger, faster, and more broad-based than in the three previous waves…” The sources of credit shifted away from global banks to the capital markets and regional banks. The buildup included a rise in government debt, particularly among commodity-exporting countries, as well as private debt. China’s private debt rise accounted for about four-fifths of the increase in private EMDE debt during this period. External debt rose, particularly in the EMDEs excluding China, and much of these liabilities were denominated in foreign currency.

The World Bank’s economists report that about half of all episodes of rapid debt accumulation in the EMDEs have been associated with financial crises. They (with Wee Chian Koh) further explore this subject in a recent World Bank Policy Research Paper, “Debt and Financial Crises.” They identify 256 episodes of rapid government debt accumulation and 263 episodes of rapid private debt accumulation in 100 EMDEs over the period of 1970-2018. They test their effect upon the occurrence of bank, sovereign debt and currency crises in an econometric model, and find that such accumulations do increase the likelihood of such crises. An increase of government debt of 30 percentage points of GDP raised the probability of a debt crisis to 2% from 1.4% in the absence of such a build-up, and of a currency crisis to 6.6% from 4.1%. Similarly, a 15% of GDP rise in private debt doubled the probability of a bank crisis to 4.8% if there were no accumulation, and of a currency crisis to 7.5% from 3.9%. (For earlier analyses of the impact of external debt on the occurrence of bank crises see here and here.)

Kristin J. Forbes of MIT and Francis E. Warnock of the University of Virginia’s Darden Business School looked at episodes of extreme capital flows in the period since the global financial crisis (GFC) in a recent NBER Working Paper, “Capital Flows Waves—or Ripples? Extreme Capital Flow Movements Since the Crisis.”  They update the results reported in their 2012 Journal of International Economics paper, in which they distinguished between surges, stops, flights and retrenchments. They reported that before the GFC global risk, global growth and regional contagion were associated with extreme capital flow episodes, while domestic factors were less important.

Forbes and Warnock update their data base in the new paper. They report that has been a lower incidence of extreme capital flow episodes since 2009 in their sample of 58 advanced and emerging market economies, and such episodes occur more as “ripples” than “waves.” They also find that as in the past the majority of episodes of extreme capital flows were debt-led. When they distinguish between bank versus portfolio debt, their results suggest a substantially larger role for bank flows in driving extreme capital flows.

Forbes and Warnock also repeat their earlier analysis of the determinants of extreme capital flows using data from the post-crisis period. They find less evidence of significant relationships of the global variables with the extreme capital flows. Global risk is significant only in the stop and retrenchment episodes, and contagion is significantly associated only with surges. They suggest that these results may reflect changes in the post-crisis global financial system, such as greater use of unconventional tools of monetary policy, as well as increased volatility in commodity prices.

Corporations can respond to crises by changing how and where they raise funds. Juan J. Cortina, Tatiana Didier and Sergio L. Schmukler of the World Bank analyze these responses in another World Bank Policy Research Working paper, “Global Corporate Debt During Crises: Implications of Switching Borrowing across Markets.” They point out that firms can obtain funds either via bank syndicated lending or bonds, and they can borrow in international or domestic markets. They use data on 56,826 firms in advanced and emerging market economies with 183,732 issuances during the period 1991-2014, and focus on borrowing during the GFC and domestic banking crises. They point out that the total amounts of bonds and syndicated loans issued during this period increased almost 27-fold in the emerging market economies versus more than 7 times in the advanced economies.

Cortina, Didier and Schmukler found that the issuance of bonds relative to syndicated loans increased during the GFC by 9 percentage points from a baseline of 52% in the emerging markets, and by 6 percentage points in the advanced economies from a baseline probability of 28%. There was also an increase in the use of domestic debt markets relative to international ones during the GFC, particularly by emerging economy firms. During domestic banking crises, on the other hand, firms turned to the use of bonds in the international markets. When the authors used firm-level data, they found that this switching was done by larger firms.

The authors also report that the debt instruments have different characteristics. For example, the emerging market firms obtained smaller amounts of funds with bonds as compared to bank syndicated loans. Moreover, the debt of firms in emerging markets in international markets was more likely to be denominated in foreign currency, as opposed to the use of domestic currency in domestic markets.

Cortina, Didier and Schmukler also investigated how these characteristics changed during the GFC and domestic bank crises. While the volume of bond financing increased during the GFC relative to the pre-crisis years, syndicated bank loan financing fell, and these amounts in the emerging market economies fully compensated each other. In the advanced economies, on the other hand, total debt financing fell.

The global pandemic is disrupting all financial markets and institutions. The situation of banks in the advanced economies is stronger than it was during the GFC (but this could change), and the Federal Reserve is supporting the flow of credit. But the emerging markets corporations and governments that face falling exports, currency depreciations and enormous health expenditures will find it difficult to service their debt. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, has announced that the Fund will come to the assistance of these economies, and next week’s meeting of the IMF will address their needs. The fact that alarm bells about debt in emerging markets had been sounding will be of little comfort to those who have to deal with the collapse in financial flows.

The Long Reach of U.S. Monetary Policy

Leave a reply

The spillover of U.S. monetary policy on foreign economies has become an active area of research. Analysts seek to identify the channels of transmission between the policy stance of the Federal Reserve and foreign interest rates and credit extension. The usual account is that an expansionary Fed policy leads to capital outflows and an appreciation of foreign currencies as investors seek higher yields abroad. Two recent papers have focused on different aspects of this linkage.

Silvia Albrizio of the Bank of Spain, Sangyup Choi of Yonsei University, Davide Furceri of the IMF and Chansik Yoon of Princeton University investigated the impact of monetary tightening on cross-border bank lending in an IMF working paper, “International Bank Lending Channel of Monetary Policy.” Previous work was divided on whether a contractionary U.S. policy would lead to a decline or an increase in international bank lending. These economists used data on exogenous policy shocks in the U.S., which are based on the narrative approach of  Romer and Romer (2004), to examine their impact on cross-border bank lending in 45 countries.

The results show clear signs of a significant negative effect of U.S. monetary policy shocks on cross-border lending. A 100 basis point rise in the policy rate leads to a sizable more than 10% fall in lending after two quarters. When the authors extended their analysis to include monetary policy shocks in Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the U.K., they again found that exogenous monetary tightening in these economies led to a decline in cross-border bank lending. These results hold even when the authors control for global uncertainty or liquidity risks.

Sebnem Kalemli-Özcan of the University of Maryland focused on the impact of U.S. monetary policy changes on risk in her 2019 Jackson Hole presentation, “U.S. Monetary Policy and International Risk Spillovers.” In her analysis, there are two components of risk, global risk and country-specific risk, and these are crucial elements in the transmission of changes in U.S. policies to the emerging market economies. In these countries, a tightening of U.S. monetary policy leads to a rise in global risk as well as an increase in country risk. These changes in the risk premia affect the domestic response to the U.S. policy. The advanced economies, on the other hand, do not show similar responses.

For example, in the empirical analysis Kalemli-Özcan finds that an increase in the U.S. Treasury rate leads to an increase in the differential with domestic government bond rates in her sample of 46 emerging market economies, but a decline in the same differential in her sample of 13 advanced economies. However, the differential in the emerging market countries falls when a measure of global risk aversion (VIX) is added to the analysis, and becomes insignificant when an indicator of country risk (Emerging Market Bond Index Global of JPMorgan) is also utilized.

Risk premia also affect the linkage of domestic policy rates and lending rates. The presence of risk injects a wedge between the two domestic interest rates. If domestic bank rates are regressed on the policy rate in the emerging markets, the pass-through is less than complete, whereas the pass-through is almost complete in the case of the advanced economies. But the impact in the emerging markets rises when the two indicators of risk are included in the empirical analysis.

Kalemli-Özcan infers that the central banks of the emerging markets loosen their policies when risk rises, and tighten when risk falls. This response is determined in part by the type of exchange rate regime that a country has. Those emerging markets that manage their exchange rates raise their policy rates in response to the increased risk premia following a U.S. tightening. These interest rate upswings in turn affect domestic economic activity. A flexible exchange rate regime, on the other hand, mitigates the undesirable effects of the risk spillovers by absorbing the response to the higher risk. The differences in exchange rate regimes, therefore, may explain the divergence in the responses of emerging market and advanced economies to U.S. policy shocks.

Both papers acknowledge that U.S. policies have significant effects on foreign economies. Albrizio, Choi, Furceri and Yoon conclude that U.S. monetary policy is a contributor to the “global financial cycles” that Rey (2015) and others have identified. Kalemli-Özcan finds that U.S. policies are a “powerful force in driving international risk spillovers.” While global trade flows may have fallen, capital flows until the coronavirus were robust. As long as the U.S. dollar is dominant in international commerce and finance, the Fed’s influence will continue to unsettle foreign nations.

The Spillover Effects of Rising U.S. Interest Rates

1 Reply

U.S. interest rates have been rising, and most likely will continue to do so. The target level of the Federal Funds rate, currently at 1.75%, is expected to be raised at the June meeting of the Federal Open Market Committee. The yield on 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds rose above 3%, then fell as fears of Italy breaking out the Eurozone flared. That decline is likely to be reversed while the new government enjoys a (very brief) honeymoon period. What are the effects on foreign economies of the higher rates in the U.S.?

One channel of transmission will be through higher interest rates abroad. Several papers from economists at the Bank for International Settlements have documented this phenomenon. For example, Előd Takáts and Abraham Vela of the Bank for International Settlements in a 2014 BIS Paper investigated the effect of a rise in the Federal Funds rate on foreign policy rates in 20 emerging market countries, and found evidence of a significant impact on the foreign rates. They did a similar analysis for 5-year rates and found comparable results. Boris Hofmann and Takáts also undertook an analysis of interest rate linkages with U.S. rates in 30 emerging market and small advanced economies, and again found that the U.S. rates affected the corresponding rates in the foreign economies. Finally, Peter Hördahl, Jhuvesh Sobrun and Philip Turner attribute the declines in long-term rates after the global financial crisis to the fall in the term premium in the ten-year U.S. Treasury rate.

The spillover effects of higher interest rates in the U.S., however, extend beyond higher foreign rates. In a new paper, Matteo Iacoviello and Gaston Navarro of the Federal Reserve Board investigate the impact of higher U.S. interest rates on the economies of 50 advanced and emerging market economies. They report that monetary tightening in the U.S. leads to a decline in foreign GDP, with a larger decline found in the emerging market economies in the sample. When they investigate the channels of transmission, they differentiate among an exchange rate channel, where the impact depends on whether or not a country pegs to the dollar; a trade channel, based on the U.S. demand for foreign goods; and a financial channel that reflects the linkage of U.S. rates with the prices of foreign assets and liabilities. They find that the exchange rate and trade channels are very important for the advanced economies, whereas the financial channel is significant for the emerging market countries.

Robin Koepke, formerly of the Institute of International Finance and now at the IMF, has examined the role of U.S. monetary policy tightening in precipitating financial crises in the emerging market countries. His results indicated that there are three factors that raise the probability of a crisis: first, the Federal Funds rate is above its natural level; second, the rate increase takes place during a policy tightening cycle; and third, the tightening is faster than expected by market participants. The strongest effects were found for currency crises, followed by banking crises.

According to the trilemma, policymakers should have options that allow them to regain monetary control. Flexible exchange rates can act as a buffer against external shocks. But foreign policymakers may resist the depreciation of the domestic currency that follows a rise in U.S. interest rates. The resulting increase in import prices can trigger higher inflation, particularly if wages are indexed. This is not a concern in the current environment. But the depreciation also raises the domestic value of debt denominated in foreign currencies, and many firms in emerging markets took advantage of the previous low interest rate regime to issue such debt. Now the combination of higher refinancing costs and exchange rate depreciation is making that debt much less attractive, and some central banks are raising their own rates to slow the deprecation (see, for example, here and here and here).

Dani Rodrik of the Kennedy School and Arvin Subramanian, currently Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, however, have little sympathy for policymakers who complain about the actions of the Federal Reserve. As they point out, “Many large emerging-market countries have consciously and enthusiastically embraced financial globalization…there were no domestic compulsions forcing these countries to so ardently woo foreign capital.” They go on to cite the example of China, which “…has chosen to insulate itself from foreign capital and has correspondingly been less affected by the vagaries of Fed actions…”

It may be difficult for a small economy to wall itself off from capital flows. Growing businesses will seek new sources of finance, and domestic residents will want to diversify their portfolios with foreign assets. The dollar has a predominant role in the global financial system, and it would be difficult to escape the spillover effects of its policies. But those who lend or borrow in foreign markets should realize, as one famed former student of the London School of Economics warned, that they play with fire.

A Guide to the (Financial) Universe: Part II

1 Reply

(Part I of this Guide appears here.)

3. Crisis and Response

The global crisis revealed that the pre-crisis financial universe was more fragile than realized at the time. Before the crisis, this fragility was masked by low interest rates, which were due in part to the buildup of foreign reserves in the form of U.S. securities by emerging market economies. The high ratings that mortgage backed securities (MBS) in the U.S. received from the rating agencies depended on these low interest rates and rising housing prices. Once interest rates increased, however, and housing values declined, mortgage borrowers—particularly those considered “subprime”—abandoned their properties. The value of the MBS fell, and financial institutions in the U.S. and Europe sought to remove them from their balance sheets, which reinforced the downward spiral in their values.

The global crisis was followed by a debt crisis in Europe. The governments of Ireland and Spain bolstered their financial institutions which had also lent extensively to the domestic housing sectors, but their support led to a deterioration in their own finances. Similarly, the safety of Greek government bonds was called into question as the scope of Greek deficit expenditures became clear, and there were concerns about Portugal’s finances.

Different systems of response and support emerged during the crises. In the case of the advanced economies, their central banks coordinated their domestic policy responses. In addition, the Federal Reserve organized currency swap networks with its counterparts in countries where domestic banks had participated in the MBS markets, as well as several emerging market economies (Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore) where dollars were also in demand. The central banks were then able to provide dollar liquidity to their banks. The European Central Bank provided similar currency arrangements for countries in that region, as did the Swiss National Bank and the corresponding Scandinavian institutions.

The emerging market countries that were not included in such arrangements had to rely on their own foreign exchange reserves to meet the demand for dollars as well as respond to exchange rate pressures. Subsequently, fourteen Asian economies formed the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization, which allows them to draw upon swap arrangements. China has also signed currency swap agreements with fourteen other countries.

In addition, emerging market economies and developing economies received assistance from the International Monetary Fund, which organized arrangements with 17 countries from the outbreak of the crisis through the following summer. The Fund had been severely criticized for its policies during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, but its response to this crisis was very different. Credit was disbursed more quickly and in larger amounts than had occurred in past crises, and there were fewer conditions attached to the programs. Countries in Asia and Latin America with credible records of macroeconomic policies were able to boost domestic spending while drawing upon their reserve holdings to stabilize their exchange rates. The IMF’s actions contributed to the recovery of these countries from the external shock.

The IMF played a very different role in the European debt crisis. It joined the European Commission, which represented European governments, and the European Central Bank to form the “Troika.” These institutions made loans to Ireland in 2010 and Portugal in 2011 in return for deficit-reduction policies, while Spain received assistance in 2012 from the other Eurozone governments. In 2013 a banking crisis in Cyprus also required assistance from the Troika.These countries eventually recovered and exited the lending programs.

Greece’s crisis, however, has been more protracted and the provisions of its program are controversial. The IMF and the European governments have been criticized for delaying debt reduction while insisting on harsh budget austerity measures. The IMF also came under attack for suborning its independence by joining the Troika, and its own Independent Evaluation Office subsequently published a report that raised questions about its institutional autonomy and accountability.

In the aftermath of the crisis, new regulations—called “macroprudential policies”—have been implemented to reduce systemic risk within the financial system. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, for example, has instituted higher bank capital and liquidity requirements. Other rules include restrictions on loan-to-value ratios. These measures are designed both to prevent the occurrence of credit bubbles and to make financial institutions more resilient. A European Banking Authority has been established to set uniform regulations on European banks and to assess risks. In the U.S., a Financial Stability Oversight Council was given the task of identifying threats to financial stability.

The crisis also caused a reassessment of capital account restrictions. The IMF, which had urged the deregulation of capital accounts before the Asian crisis of 1997-98, published in 2012 a new set of guidelines, named the “institutional view.” The Fund acknowledged that rapid capital flows surges or outflows could be disruptive, and that under some circumstances capital flow management measures could be useful. Capital account liberalization is appropriate only when countries reach threshold levels of institutional and financial development.

One legacy of the response to the crisis is the expansion of central bank balance sheets. The assets of the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Federal Reserve rose to $15 trillion as the central banks engaged in large-scale purchases of assets, called “quantitative easing”. The Federal Reserve ceased purchasing securities in 2014, and the ECB is expected to cut back its purchases later this year.  But the unwinding of these holdings is expected to take place gradually over many years, and monetary policymakers have signaled that their balance sheets are unlikely to return to their pre-crisis sizes.

(to be continued)

Not All Global Currencies Are The Same

Leave a reply

The dollar may be the world’s main global currency, but it does not serve in that capacity alone. The euro has served as an alternative since its introduction in 1999, when it took the place of the Deutschemark and the other European currencies that had also been used for that purpose. Will the renminbi become the next viable alternative?

A new volume, How Global Currencies Work: Past, Present and Future by Barry Eichengreen of the University of California-Berkeley and Arnaud Mehl and Livia Chiţu of the European Central Bank examines the record of the use of national currencies outside their borders. The authors point out that regimes of multiple global currencies have been the norm rather than an exception. Central banks held reserves in German marks and French francs as well as British sterling during the period of British hegemony, while the dollar became an alternative to sterling in the 1920s. The authors foresee an increased use of China’s renminbi and “..a future in which several national currencies will serve as units of account, means of payments, and stores of value for transactions across borders.”

Camilo E. Tovar and Tania Mohd Nor of the IMF examine the use of the reminbi as a global currency in a IMF working paper, “Reserve Currency Blocs: A Changing International Monetary System.” They claim that the international monetary system has transitioned for a bi-polar one based on the dollar and the euro to a tri-polar system that also includes the renminbi. They provide estimates of a dollar bloc equal in value to 40% of global GDP that is complemented by a renminbi bloc valued at 30% of global GDP and a euro bloc worth 20% of world output. The renminbi bloc, however, is not primarily Asian, but rather dominated by the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa). This suggests that its increased use may be due to geopolitical reasons rather than widespread regional use.

If relative size is a driving factor in the adoption of a currency for international transactions, then an increasing role for the renminbi is inevitable. But the dollar will continue to be the principal currency for many years to come. Ethan Ilzetzki of the London School of Economics, Carmen Reinhart of Harvard’s Kennedy School and Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard examine the predominance of the dollar in a NBER working paper, “Exchange Arrangements Entering the 21st Century: Which Anchor Will Hold?” They show that the dollar is far ahead of other currencies in terms of trade invoicing , foreign exchange trading, and most other measures.

The U.S. also holds a dominant role in international financial flows. Sarah Bauerle Danzman and W. Kindred Winecoff of Indiana University Bloomington have written about the reasons for what they call U.S. “financial hegemony” (see also their paper with Thomas Oatley of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Andrew Penncok of the University of Virginia). They point to the central role of the U.S. financial system in the network of international financial relationships. They claim that the financial crisis of 2008-09 actually reinforced the pivotal position of the U.S., in part due to the policies undertaken by U.S. policymakers at that time to stabilize financial markets and institutions. This included the provision by the Federal Reserve of swap lines to foreign central banks in countries where domestic banks had borrowed dollars to invest in U.S. mortgage-backed securities. (Andrew Tooze provides an account of the Federal Reserve’s activities during the crisis.)

The central position of the U.S., moreover, evolved over time, and reflects a number of attributes of the U.S. economy and its governance. Andrew Sobel of Washington University examined the features that support economic hegemony in Birth of Hegemony. He cites Charles Kindleberger’s claim of the need for national leadership in order to forestall or at least offset international downturns, such as occurred during the depression (see The World in Depression 1929-1939). Kindleberger specifically referred to the need for international liquidity and the coordination of macroeconomic policies by a nation exercising economic leadership.

Sobel, drawing upon the history of the Netherlands, Great Britain and the U.S., maintains that the countries that have provided these collective goods have possessed public and private arrangements that allowed them to provide such leadership. The former include adherence to the rule of law, a fair tax system and effective public debt markets. Among the private attributes are large and liquid capital markets and openness to foreign capital flows. Sobel shows that these features evolved in the historical cases he examines in response to national developments that did not occur in other countries that might have been alternative financial hegemons (such as France).

Will a new dominant financial hegemon appear to take the place of the U.S.? It is difficult to see the European Union or China assuming that role in the short- or medium-term. European leaders are dealing with disagreements over the nature of their union and the discontent of their voters, while China is establishing its own path. (See Milanovic on this topic.) U.S. financial institutions are dedicated to preserving their interests, and not likely to surrender their predominance. It would take a major shock, therefore, to current arrangements to upend the existing network of financial relationships. But we now live in a world where such things could happen.