Has the fight back begun?

Just for once it was good news that made the headlines yesterday, markets across the world surged, and analysts were breathing sighs of relief as real evidence emerged that the US may, just may, be getting close to bottom.

Mind you, some of the news that developed yesterday was a funny kind of good news, with analysts, it seems, determined to find silver lining in the darkest of clouds.

For some time we have been saying that the baton has been passed on to Europe. If the US is going to export its way out of trouble, then it’s not really being realistic to assume it can manage this purely on the strength of the burgeoning economic powers of the developing world. It needs to sell more to Europe too, and it needs to see a European-led recovery. Yet there is growing talk that the European recovery is looking increasingly fragile.

Then there’s George Soros, again, he has been talking about the end of a 60-year credit cycle. Is he right?

And finally, Alistair Darling does an about-turn. They used to say Gordon Brown was lucky, well it appears that mantle now applies to his successor. How can he get away with the level of incompetence he has demonstrated over the changes to capital gains tax? Well luckily for him, some of his colleagues in senior government have shown an even-greater level of incompetence, that, for the time being at least, Gordon Brown has no choice but to back his chancellor all the way to the polling booth.

But first, let’s turn to the good news, and read the next article.

Bookmark this article:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

If this is the end of a 60-year credit boom, maybe the US needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the US

And so George Soros says we are witnessing the “end of a 60-year credit boom.” Is he right, what can we do?

Maybe the problem lies with the man who is widely considered to be the greatest economist of the 20th century: Keynes.

Mr Keynes once said, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.” He also argued that the solution to the economic depression that was hurting so much at the time he wrote his most famous theories, was to go out and spend.

The thing is, Keynes died over 60 years ago now. He was right, in the long run, he did indeed die, but right now, we are living in Keynes’s long run.

Now, in fairness to Keynes, he wasn’t omnipotent. When he was writing, inflation was not the big problem, at least it wasn’t in the UK and US.

But the post-war years have been characterised by high spending every time there was recession. This, surely, has created what Mr Soros calls the 60-year credit boom.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s it seemed to be changing. When he was Prime Minister, James Callaghan once said, “We used to believe you could spend, spend your way out of recession. But I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.” Margaret Thatcher tried to go against Keynes’s theory – and her way of dealing with economic disaster was to cut spending, to try and get finances on a solid footing. Reagan spearheaded a similar approach in the US, but it was short-lived.

Under George Bush senior, the US budget deficit went through the roof, and under Thatcher, Nigel Lawson’s credit boom took hold.

Economic text books used to say the most advanced economy in the world should have a balance of payments surplus, and the developing countries the deficit. But it is all different now, the US has the deficit, China the surplus. There is no precedent for this.

We are also seeing the increasing emergence of a new school of economics, though. George Soros is a signed-up member – he says that markets do not have a self-correcting mechanism, and the solution to the global crisis is global collective action. The man, though, who is emerging as the voice of this new school of thought is Joseph Stiglitz. He has even been hailed as the successor to Keynes. (By the way, Keynes was into global collective action; remember, the IMF and World Bank were partially his idea.)

Above (Good news strikes), we told how banks and the IMF saved the day back in 1998. Well, not everyone agrees. Some, people, including Mr Stiglitz, would argue the price of economic stability in the West back in the late 1990s was economic recession in Asia and Russia.

This time around, though, the problems seen in the US with subprime – which, by the way, we are sure marks just the beginning, are too close to home. It is not practical to get someone else to carry the can.

Then throw into the pot growing US protectionism. Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, is worried about Hilary Clinton. The Telegraph quoted him as saying, “The things she’s been saying reverberate around the world…This is the last year the Doha trade round can survive. There is little chance of a breakthrough after this president leaves office. People in the current administration tell me the US is turning into a protectionist country. It is a serious concern.”

So, in other words, at a time when Stiglitz and Soros call for collective action, the US could be in danger of turning in on itself.

The big hope has to be that the US is in such a mess, that it needs the Sovereign Funds. Maybe, by being forced to court foreign capital, it will be forced to toe the line on international trade.

These are the most important issues of the year – a theme we will no doubt return to many times.

Bookmark this article:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Morgan Stanley sees first loss in 72 years, as China steps into the breach

“Whooops. I hadn’t expected that,” said members of a crack team of speculators at Morgan Stanley. It was one little error, one wrong bead on the abacus of corporate banking, and yet it cost the bank $7bn. As for the bottom line, the bank made a quarterly loss of $3.59 billion, the first loss in 72 years. Mind you, shareholders and cynical commentators should ponder on this. The bank’s boss, John Mack, has magnanimously agreed to forego his bonus this year. “Ultimately, accountability for our results rests with me, and I believe in pay for performance, so I’ve told our compensation committee that I will not accept a bonus for 2007,” said Mr Mack. So, if you are one of those bitter envious types who don’t like to hear about massive pay settlements to the great men and women who run our banks, put that in your pipe and smoke it. Mr Mack will have to live off his salary now. Who knows? Maybe he will have to apply for a subprime loan.

It seems the problem was that this crack team of speculators were just too clever for their own good. With tremendous foresight they reckoned there were going to be major problems with subprime, so they went short, which is to say that they bet on future falls in the subprime market. A clever move, that, but with a sting in the tail. To protect themselves from the possibility of calling it wrong, they also took a long position on conventional supersafe prime mortgages. Big mistake.

Morgan Stanley’s total write-downs, that’s including those from the previous quarter, now tally $10.3 billion. That puts the bank into the unfortunate position of occupying third spot in the league of this year’s write-downs. UBS is in joint first spot, tying with Citibank, but then the US banking giant is yet to reveal its fourth-quarter write-downs.

Total write-downs from the banks this year now come in at $70 billion. That sounds awful, but remember the IMF predicted total losses of $300 billion; even then, they reckoned the global economy would expand by 4.8 per cent next year.

But actually, something else far more significant occurred at Morgan Stanley yesterday. The bank also revealed that China Investment Corp is set to throw in $5 billion, in return for around 10 per cent of the bank.

As we have said before, the world is changing. Instead of China and the oil-rich countries buying US and UK debt, they are increasingly looking to invest into the US and UK in exchange for equity. In the short-term, it means wealthy sovereign funds are plugging liquidity holes. In the longer term it means US and UK assets are being sold on the cheap, which will in turn mean more dividend payments flowing away. This will put further pressure on the dollar, and then on the pound, in the longer term.

More to the point, at a time when our populations are ageing, we should be buying foreign assets. Instead, we are looking for foreigners to bail us out.

In the longer term, smoke and mirrors don’t work. If we are spending and borrowing when we should be saving, then there is a price to pay. And no cavalry charge, whether it be one led by “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke, Mervyn King, “Airbus” Jean-Claude Trichet, or the People’s Republic of China, can do anything to solve that.

Bookmark this article:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit