|
"The coming storm" is the title of an article in the Economist (February
21, 2004). The article was noteworthy and important because the Economist is
not noted for being alarmist. Not that this article came off as being overtly
alarmist written as it was in the Economist's usual calm, well researched,
analytical manner. So just what was it that caught their attention?
Well it is that bastion of conservatism known as the banks. Contrary to popular
opinion, banks are often anything but the sober thoughtful deposit gatherers,
loan givers and money managers that they love to portray. But retail banking
is just the most obvious public face of your friendly bank. Behind the scenes
often unbeknownst to the general public are the capital markets, investment
banking and corporate finance divisions financing the global corporate world
and involved in a wide array of trading activities. And it is here that they
often make huge gambles that can also result in spectacular failures.
As the Economist article points out one of them was the gamble that
after Russia defaulted in 1998 it resulted in not only the markets going "berserk" but
in the collapse of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM), a very large hedge
fund that had to be bailed out by its bankers at the behest of the Federal
Reserve. Bank losses were huge and LTCM disappeared but evidence later emerged
that this was so huge it almost brought down the banking system if the Federal
Reserve hadn't stepped up cutting interest rates rapidly and flooding the system
with money to provide liquidity to prevent the meltdown. The resulting massive
liquidity injections were then eventually one of the reasons behind the stock
market bubble of the late 1990's.
In pointing this out the Economist went on to relate how once again
the banks are making huge bets in the market and that their risk management
models underestimate the potential of big shocks when everyone is trying to
get out of the market all at once. So just what are banks doing?
Well for one thing they have huge investments in hedge funds. The very name
hedge funds is a misnomer as many of them are anything but. Hedge funds make
their huge returns by taking big bets in the market using at times enormous
leverage. And banks themselves do the same things with depositor's money in
their trading and lending activities. This works well when markets are going
up and the policies of the Federal Reserve and the world's central banks are
in alignment encouraging the markets so that their huge bets are almost "lay-ups".
This phenomena was best illustrated with the Yen and Gold carry trades of
the mid to late nineties whereby they were able to borrow funds cheaply (in
Yen and through gold leases) knowing that the monetary authorities were determined
to maintain low rates in the case of Japan and that the central banks were
seeking a return on their vast gold holdings. The resulting funds were then
re-invested elsewhere from US Treasury bonds to emerging market debt and the
stock market, wherever considerable higher returns could be had. Of course
when things go wrong in a big way as they did in 1998 they couldn't get out
fast enough to prevent a blow-up and their risk management models proved to
be useless.
Banks themselves are notorious at building up huge positions in the latest
hot market only to discover that when conditions change, often quickly, they
wind up with huge losses. Think back to the early 1980's and the collapse of
the third world debt, the oil price collapse in the mid-eighties, the real
estate debacle in the early nineties and more recently the internet, technology
and telecommunications collapse. With exceptionally low interest rates banks
have been increasing their bets in a wide array of areas including junk bonds,
derivatives and structured products and of course the above mentioned investment
in hedge funds. Oddly enough many of the biggest hedge funds are run by former
bank and investment dealer traders who left their companies to set up their
own hedge funds.
Take derivatives for example. In the past year alone (third quarter 2002 to
third quarter 2003 the period for which the latest data is available) US banks
derivatives positions have increased by 26% to $67 trillion. Assets on the
other hand are only up 11% to just over $6 trillion. But of the derivatives
fully half of them are with one financial institution J.P. Morgan Chase Bank
(JPM-NYSE). We remember when we were astounded that their derivative positions
totalled $23 trillion.
We are not sure what to make of the last reported position for JPM of $34
trillion up 29% in the reporting period. Of this the largest positions are
in interest rate swaps. Of course we don't know what is on the other side or
the effect of netting agreements (according to numbers some 80%+ of derivative
contracts) on the positions that may lower the risk. Of course it is when whatever
is on the other side defaults then the trouble begins especially if as it was
in 1998 big enough.
But the point is, if something went amiss, losses could be enormous. Large
write offs were seen as a result of derivatives and loans in the 1998 collapse
and again in 2002 as a result of the internet, technology, telecommunications
collapse. But banks are in the business because the returns are huge and their
gamble is that nothing untoward will happen to cause huge losses or certainly
nothing large enough that would seriously impair their capital. And of course
as long as the monetary authorities set the proper conditions (which they invariably
do) their gambles are almost assured.
But with each round of financial disasters that seem to imperil the system
every so many years the markets and the economy become more susceptible to
shocks. And each time it takes increasing amounts of new debt and money to
bail the system out. But in the "what me worry" world of banks, corporations
and consumers they know that while some will get hurt they know that the Federal
Reserve will ride to their rescue. So it is okay for the consumer to spend
more than he earns, to save nothing, to watch debt grow well past 100% of income
even as real wages are falling.
And the corporations and banks encourage this as well with their own risk
taking recognizing that maybe something might happen to cause a temporary blip
in their earnings but that at the end of the day once again the Federal Reserve
will ride to their rescue and lower interest rates and flood the system with
liquidity ensuring that they will survive the bumps so that they may go on
to the next round. Even Alan Greenspan has expressed recent concern about financial
institutions such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (describe by some as hedge
funds in disguise) or the growing unsustainable debts being accumulated by
the current White House administration all as if they have no concern about
the future.
Of course the question begs what if it outside the realm of their risk management
models something happened that was beyond their control that even the Federal
Reserve couldn't properly respond to. With interest rates already at record
lows coupled with ongoing liquidity injections for almost any reason over the
past number of years and enormous debt loads already in place here is very
little room to manoeuvre if another major crisis hit.
So where could a crisis come from? The Economist mused on some even
if they did not get too specific. What if there were serious dollar crises
that caused interest rates to spike or a huge spike in oil prices (flashpoints
might come in Venezuela where there are ongoing rumblings against a President
that the US would love to remove or Saudi Arabia where there has been considerable
unrest in the past year including a few terrorist bombings directed at foreigners
and indirectly at the Royal House of Saud) or an emerging market getting into
trouble (Argentina for example who we understand may be prepared to default
the IMF).
We also add our musing of what of another terrorist attack on US soil or a
major US political assassination. On the latter we are reminded of the 20 year
cycle of Presidents elected in years ending in zero who have a history of either
death in office or assassination. Of the 8 Presidents since 1840 (Bush jr.
is the 9th) in years ending in zero 4 were assassinated with only
the last one Ronald Reagan surviving an assassination attempt. While this thought
might seem "out of it" cycles do have an odd way of repeating themselves so
it should not be instantly dismissed.
So if the "coming storm" as outlined by the Economist isn't enough
they followed it up the very next week with "A phoney recovery" (The Economist February
28, 2004) outlining how the current US recovery is anything but. The job numbers
released today are confirming that something is clearly amiss in the so called
recovery. We should be paying attention. After all, the Economist is
supposed to be a conservative, sober, well researched, analytical magazine.
They are certainly not alarmist analysts predicting a financial Armageddon
with the only safe haven being gold.
Note: In our last article on "Poor man's gold" we forgot to mention another
excellent silver analyst in Ted Butler whose web site can be found at www.butlerresearch.com.
Worth checking out.
|