Coming recession in 2020? Possibly earlier

Negative rates: Pedestrians walking past the Bank of Japan (BoJ) headquarters in Tokyo. BoJ’s goal remains at keeping real interest rates as negative as possible, as long as the economy performs. — Bloomberg

IT’S mid-term review time as the US yield curve begins to flatten.

This curve tracks the relationship between interest rates of US government debt obligations. Normally the yield curve is rising, with long-term bonds having yields higher than short-term obligations.

But occasionally the curve inverts, with long bonds yielding less than short Treasury bills – a historical predictor of future recessions and bear markets in stocks. Recently, the curve has become noticeably flatter, with short rates rising and longer yields remaining stagnant. This has led many analysts to think that the yield curve will soon invert.

But that does not mean a recession is imminent. Just returned from an extended visit back to Harvard. Touched base with my mentors and professors at both extremes of the economic spectrum. They are all split on what this flattening really means. In the event it does invert (the gap today being below 0.3%), recession has almost always (over the past 50 years) followed within a year or so. But few see a recession soon on the horizon.

The first half has come and gone. The ongoing transition to more normal conditions continue in the context of a robust US economy; continued progress in the orderly normalisation of US monetary policy; and re-awakened sensitivities to geopolitical and protectionist risks.

There will be higher interest rates, some inflation concerns and trade tariffs coming-on in the context of markets more readily accepting two to three more rate hikes by the Fed in 2018. The prospect of a global trade war makes everyone very cautious.

Once we start down the road of tariff increases and threats of more to come, the dangers of retaliatory miscalculations are real and very scary. Still even an inverted yield curve should not be on top of our worry list under today’s accommodative monetary conditions.

Synchronised pick-up

The world economy benefitted from four drivers of higher growth: the healing process in Europe, re-bound from slowdowns in Brazil, India and Russia; soft landing in China; and pro-growth measures in US.

To persist, Europe needs to do much more. Also, there is hope that recent tariff tensions would eventually lead to fairer and still-free trade which recognises the inter-dependent nature of global supply chains, and show greater willingness to protect intellectual property rights, modernize trade arrangements and reduce non-tariff barriers. Yes, more rate hikes from the Fed are still on the cards. But the same by the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BOJ) demand trickier manoeuvring.

This is an area that warrants close monitoring since volatility will likely persist. At least for now, fears of Japan-like deflation in US and Europe are effectively gone. But OECD is worried global growth is not yet self-sustaining. It’s strength in 2018 is largely due to monetary and fiscal policy support – and lacking in rising productivity gains and sweeping structural reforms. In Europe, the “clock is ticking”; without reforms, more populist uprisings will appear as the upswing ages and then fades. US inflation is not only returning to the Fed’s 2% target, but also likely to exceed it. In Europe, consumer prices were last still lower than a year ago – below the ECB’s target of just below 2%. Fear of the spectre of deflation has led BOJ to remain cautious about tapering its monetary easing program. Will just have to wait and see.

IMF warns that the world’s US$164 trillion debt pile (at 225% of GDP) is bigger than at the height of the financial crisis a decade ago. One-half was accounted for by US, Japan and China. What’s needed is for US fiscal policy to be recalibrated to bring down the government debt to GDP ratio (80%) and for China to deleverage its US$ 2.6 trillion private debt. There is no sign either is being done which runs the risk of triggering yet another financial crisis.

Growth will falter

Growth in US can slow considerably when the boosts from last year’s tax-cuts in US fades in 2019 and 2020. IMF now warns that US will grow at about one-half the 3% annual pace forecast by the White House over the next 5 years, reflecting the effects of growing massive fiscal deficit and continuing trade imbalance. For US, sluggish productivity remains a key determinant. In 2Q18, GDP picked-up to rise 4.1% (2.2% in 1Q18) the fastest pace in nearly four years, reflecting broad-based momentum.

But worker productivity advanced 1.3% from a year earlier, consistent with the sluggish 1.2% average annual rate in 2007-2017, well below the better than 2% annual average since WWII. Spending by consumers, businesses and government as well as surging exports all appeared solid in 2Q18. The expansion enters its 10th year this month, building on what is already the second longest expansion on record. Faster growth which has helped to drive the unemployment rate to its lowest level in 18 years, fueled quick corporate profit growth.

Median estimates place GDP growth at 2.8% in 2018, 2.4% in 2019 and 1.8% over the long run. But everyone has growth slowing next year because of falling business and consumer sentiment, reflecting trade disputes with China and many US allies, and uncertainty whether rising business investment is sustainable.

The big concern is the economy overheating – already, it is bumping up against capacity constraints as labour markets tighten. Still, the consensus is that the next downturn will not arrive until 2020. Most economists expect 3% inflation over the next year. What worries me most is the deteriorating global political and strategic environment.

Not so much the economic outlook directly. The world is changing too much, too fast.

So much so, the geopolitical situation is getting worse – open warfare between Israel and Iran, the disgraceful state of Palestine, and uncertainties surrounding Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, and lack of leadership in Europe. Trade barriers are causing much anxiety. It is as though what’s put in place since WWII isn’t worth a damn anymore.

Europe and Japan

Latest indications from the Brookings-FT Index for Global Economic Recovery (Tiger) show global growth has peaked and momentum has started to fade. Indeed, financial markets are already reflecting mounting vulnerabilities. With weak economic data in 1H’18, Europe and Japan have since cooled. In late 2017, eurozone was still growing at 3.5%: Germany at 4%, France 3%, Italy 2% and Spain 3.5%. But activity slackened to only 1.2% in early April; even Germany recorded a sharp dip – down to only 1%, reflecting waning monetary easing effects and supply-side constraints. The outlook is for a strong above trend upswing for the rest of the year. OECD now expects GDP growth in 2018 to be 2.2% (2.6% in 2017) and in 2019, 2.1%.

For eurozone, the window for reforms is closing – ranging from the implementation of dual currencies for its members to putting European Parliament in charge of economic policy, including the euro-budget. Japanese GDP shrank 0.1% in 1Q18 despite a rise in capital investment. Household spending unexpectedly fell. Still, recovery is expected to be driven by a weak yen brought about by monetary stimulus (BoJ has been buying assets at US$740 billion a year to drive down long-term interest rates). But underlying inflation is stuck at 0.5%. BoJ’s goal remains at keeping real interest rates (after inflation) as negative as possible, as long as the economy performs. OECD forecasts growth in Japan to be 1.2% in 2018 (1.7% in 2017); the same in 2019.

China and BRICS

Many emerging markets (EMs) are still enjoying momentum from 2017, but there is growing concern about rising debt and vulnerabilities to capital flight as interest rates in US rise. For those recently emerged from recession, viz. Russia, Brazil and South Africa, their urge to return to strong levels of activity remains sluggish.

China and India have fewer concerns for their immediate outlook. Still, they need to reform their economies to help raise living standards to catch up. The main challenges will be to execute particular reforms – not just to the financial system but also to SOEs and local governments, including getting rid of corruption.

China’s GDP rose 6.7% in 2Q’18, the slowest pace since 2016. Retail sales held up rather well as did exports. Still, measures to curb rampant borrowing are biting – investments in infrastructure and manufacturing by SOEs and local governments have since slackened. These efforts, in the midst of headwinds from abroad (especially protectionist tariffs), have led to downgrades in growth for the rest of the year. IMF now forecasts GDP growth in China to average 6.5% in 2018 (6.8% in 2017) and about the same in 2019.

Recent depreciation of China’s currency, the yuan, exposes crucial vulnerabilities within the world’s second-largest economy as it faces escalating trade tensions with the US. The currency posted its biggest ever monthly fall against US$ in June (3.4%) and has since lost more ground. This slide marks a departure for the currency often regarded as an anchor of stability for Asia and other EMs.

As Beijing assesses the options, it finds itself between a rock and a hard place because (i) People’s Bank of China (PBoC) intervention means selling its US dollar stash of reserves – which stood at US$3.11 trillion in June; (ii) it could instead raise domestic interest rates, thereby making the currency more attractive which might help to shore up the yuan. But it also risks weakening an already slowing Chinese economy just as the trans-Pacific trade war starts to bite; and (iii) it could impose stricter controls on China’s capital account which will likely spook overseas funds that have rushed into China’s domestic bond and equity markets this year at an unprecedented rate.

However, to internationalise the yuan, China has to keep fund flows relatively unencumbered. The PBoC has sensibly pledged to keep the RMB “generally stable.” In July, China implemented a mix of tax cuts and greater infrastructure spending citing growing uncertainties, as it ramps up efforts to stimulate demand to counteract a weakening economy.

As for India, I wrote extensively on what’s happening there (my July 2018 column: “India: Chugging Along but Needs More Firepower” refers).

What then are we to do

As I see it, China and China-India centred Asia is now the heart of the world economy. Their steady growth has been a source of stability in an otherwise unsteady world.

Of late, developments in China received more scrutiny than usual because of the context: Chinese stock market has since fallen into bear territory, and a growing trade dispute with the world’s largest economy, US. Despite China’s astonishingly sustained expansion, the economy is widely considered vulnerable because growth in output has been underwritten by an even faster increase in debt.

The nation’s gross debt – both public and private – is now estimated at over 250% of GDP. The worry is not just the volume of debt but its quality. China’s domestic policies encourage high savings.

Those savings, held in banks, have been funneled to companies, especially SOEs. The credit quality of the loans is hard to assess but is likely to be uneven. China has since begun to slowly tighten the credit taps, with even tighter rules on shadow banking and more scrutiny for both local government financing and public-private investment projects.

At the same time, a sharp increase in the number of defaults by corporate issuers has revived anxieties about Chinese debt. In my view, it is the tighter credit conditions and defaults, rather than worries about a trade war, that best explain the recent 22% decline in the Shanghai Composite index from its January highs.

Tightening credit policy is also a compelling explanation for the weak macro-economics. Credit growth fell, and growth in fixed investment followed. This appears to be having some effect on consumer sentiment as well.

No doubt, Trump’s tariffs on US$50bil of Chinese imports (and threatens US$200bil more) will have a direct (but unlikely to be catastrophic) impact on growth. But China is now an investment-led rather than an export-led economy.

Still, it is the knock-on effects that are most feared. If the escalation of hostilities leads to a reduction in foreign direct investment in China, the long-term impact could be significant. True, China may be facing a delicate moment economically.

But given China’s deepening role in the world economy, any pain that the US manages to inflict on it would be quickly shared with the US and the broader world – at a moment when Europe’s economy is slowing, and many EMs looking unstable.

On the whole, China’s economy will remain strong and resilient. Whatever happens, I think this won’t change the Chinese situation much.


By Lin See-yan - what are we to do?

Former banker Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of The Global Economy in Turbulent Times (Wiley, 2015) and Turbulence in Trying Times (Pearson, 2017). Feedback is most welcome.

Related posts:

Recalling Bank Negara’s massive forex losses in 1990s

 

Global economic order under threat

 

Bizarre world of new debt, low, even negative interest rates a threat to global stability

 

 

Bitcoin: Utter pipedream

 

 What is Blockchain Technology, its uses and applications?

 

https://youtu.be/E_kCCgsldjU

Global economic order under threat

 

Coming global economic crash, threat of WWIII, petitioned 2030 Agenda for a One World Global Government under a New World Order. http://jimdukeperspective.com/1526-globalagend/

Related: 

Why is Bitcoin price going down again? - Global Coin Report

The Bitcoin Price Is Tanking -- Here's Why - Forbes

 

The Bitcoin Price Is Down 50% This Year Alone -- Here's Why - Forbes

 

Bitcoin's Bad Year Keeps Getting Worse. Down 70% From High | Fortune

 

Bitcoin 'On a One-way Street Going Down' Says Futures Trader ...

 

 PressReader - The Star : Rethinking Social progress in the 21st century

Bitcoin: Utter pipedream

No intrinsic value: Unlike enterprises, bitcoin has no business, no intrinsic value, no cash flows and no balance sheet. — AFP

I JUST returned from a meeting of the Asian Shadow Financial Regulatory Committee in Bangkok.

The group comprises Asian academic experts on economics and finance. Their role is to monitor the state of the world economy and the workings of its financial markets in the light of existing and prospective policies; and draw lessons and give advice on vital public policy issues of current interest to regulators and market practitioners to make the world a better place.

The group comprises 23 professors from 14 countries, coming from a diverse group of universities and think-tanks, including the universities of Sydney and Monash, and of Fudan, Hong Kong and Sun-Yat-Sen in China, Universitas Indonesia, universities of Tokyo and Hitotsubashi, Yonsei and Korea universities, Sunway University, Massey University in New Zealand, University of the Philippines, Singapore Management University, National Taiwan University, Chulalongkorn University and NIDA Business School, University of Hawaii and University of California at Davis, University of Vietnam, and Tilburg University in the Netherlands.

They examined key issues surrounding the theme: “Cryptocurrencies: Quo Vadis?” focusing on the role and activities of the flavour of the month, bitcoin. At the end of it all, they issued the following statement:

“Cryptocurrencies in general, and bitcoin, in particular, have been receiving considerable press of late, driven mainly by wide swings in value in the cryptocurrency exchanges. There are now in excess of 2,500 products considered to be cryptocurrencies and in the last three weeks alone their combined market value has plummeted from US$830bil to US$545bil as of today, of which US$215bil is attributed to bitcoin and bitcoin cash.

To keep this in perspective, however, Apple Inc has a market value of US$880bil as of today. Market value measures the equity value of a business – or what investors are willing to pay for its future profits. Unlike enterprises, however, bitcoin has no business, no intrinsic value, no cash flows, no profit and loss statement, and no balance sheet. It is a speculative instrument.

Cryptocurrencies, including bitcoin, are not considered currency today because they are not a universal means of payment, nor a stable store of value, nor a reliable unit of account. Buyers purchase on the basis that these cryptocurrencies would rise in value. While market value has been the main focus of the current interest, the more important issues are around the role of cryptocurrencies both as financial assets, and the role they can play in transaction settlements, and their implications, if any, on financial stability.

While there is much interest in cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin, the volume of transactions remains very small currently. For example, total US dollars (cash) in circulation amount to US$1.6 trillion as of today. M3 (broad money) is valued by the Federal Reserve at US$14 trillion. Total US economy assets in 2016 were valued at US$220 trillion. So why the fascination with cryptocurrencies? Supporters of Bitcoin claim it to be a superior store of value to fiat money issued by central banks because its supply is limited by design and therefore cannot be debased. In addition, the technology behind bitcoin, called the Blockchain, provides anonymity to its players. That is why it is a favourite with money launderers, tax evaders, terrorists, drug smuggler, hackers, and anyone who wants to evade the rule of law. Many people who use cryptocurrencies assert that they pay minimal transaction costs mainly because it avoids the cost of financial intermediation.

Still, there is large potential for capital gains because of the wide volatility of its price movement. This is the main driving force behind the popularity of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. However, there are high risks involved including extreme volatility and opaque, unregulated exchanges that are prone to cyberattacks.

Authorities and regulators worry about bitcoin because they fear it is a bubble. In the event of a bust, investors in bitcoin – they are many, spread over various continents and countries – will be hurt; and they exert pressure on governments to regulate this business in order to protect investors.

In addition, they worry about the impact – in the event that cryptocurrency trading becomes a significant element in maintaining financial stability – in terms of the impact on the transmission of monetary policy and on its effects on the banking system, and most of all, on systemic risk, if any.

Authorities have responded in different way. In South Korea, new regulations today require banks and exchanges to identify who their customers are, imposing greater transparency in the conduct of the cryptocurrency business. On the other hand, Japanese authorities are more liberal. They only require the registration of companies engaged in this business at this time.

Many other authorities, including those in the US, are adopting a wait-and-see attitude while studying the issues, recognising that there may be a role for them to introduce some regulatory measures in the event that the volume and price volatility of cryptocurrency transactions become more and more significant.

In the meantime, government and tax authorities feel uneasy about the impact on revenue collection. Other regulators are worried about crowdfunding through ICOs (initial coin offers). Authorities in a number of countries, including the US, have introduced measures to regulate the issue of new ICOs to ensure that investors are provided with the necessary information before making such investments.

At the same time, central banks in many countries are looking into the desirability and possibility of issuing their own digital currencies, including to counter privately-issued cryptocurrencies.

Recommendations:

1. Bitcoin came into prominence because of an apparent lack of confidence in fiat currency. It is imperative that governments and central banks continue to give priority to (i) protecting the integrity of their currencies; (ii) designing policies to contain inflation to prevent it from debasing the currency; and (iii) strengthening their mandate to promote financial stability over financial development, if needed (including ensure fintech development does not undermine confidence). Also, in cases where authorities do not have the power to regulate the cryptocurrency business, they should actively seek such authority where appropriate.

2. Monetary authorities should be open to creating digital currencies rather than confining their money supply to notes, coins and deposits. But they should do so in a transparent manner and only after careful consultation and study.

3. It is the role of government to warn their citizens and investors about the high risk involved, and ensure transparency in bitcoin activity, and not to unduly introduce more and more regulations that will stifle innovative initiatives. Blockchain technology, for example, does have other useful applications apart from the issue of its use in the creation of digital currency.

Investor protection

As we see today, bitcoin and the other cryptocurrencies are not currencies. Mostly, they reflect speculative activity. Hence, investing and transacting in them involve high risks. It is imperative that investors realise this and approach investing in cryptocurrencies with great caution and with as much information as is available to help them manage these risks.

Investors must fully understand that cryptocurrency prices need not necessarily always rise, particularly because they have no intrinsic value, they could just as easily fall. So investors beware: Caveat emptor.”

Update

The following developments are noteworthy:

> Columbia’s Prof N. Roubini (Dr Doom) claims bitcoin is not a currency. Few price anything in bitcoin. Not many retailers accept it (even bitcoin conferences don’t accept it as payment). And it’s a poor store of value because its price can fluctuate 20%-30% a day. Worse, he labelled it “the mother of all bubbles” because its claim of a steady-state supply is “fraudulent”.
It has already created thee similar currencies: Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin and Bitcoin Gold. Together with the hundreds of such other currencies invented daily, this creation of money supply is debasing the currency at a much faster pace than any major central banks ever did. Furthermore, bitcoin’s claimed advantage is also its Achilles’s heel – for, even if it actually did have a steady supply of 21 million units, it is not a viable currency because the supply won’t track potential nominal GDP growth; hence, prices will become deflationary – the kind of phenomenon that economist Irving Fisher believed caused the Great Depression.

Indeed, the head of the European Central Bank had since declared to the European Parliament that cryptocurrencies are unregulated and “very risky assets. Their price is entirely speculative”. That’s not what we want or need. It’s a pity the FOMO (fear of missing out) of many retail investors will end them in a wild goose ride!

> Over its nine-year history, bitcoin has had five-peak-to-trough falls of more than 70% each. The recent decline offers a dose of reality to new investors – bitcoin dropped to a low US$7,850 on Feb 2 for the first time since November 2017 – crashing 60% from the high of nearly US$20,000 in mid-December. Sentiment has shifted dramatically this year.

On Feb 5, it fell another 4% to US$7,524. Also, the fledging market has taken a number of blows: Facebook has since banned advertisements on it (for being misleading); US Securities and Exchange Commission has accused some latest ICOs as “outright scams”; US and UK largest banks have put up “road-blocks” to financing bitcoins; and the recent Japanese hack theft of 523 million crypto-XEM (worth US$500mil) brought back memories of Mt Gox, which collapsed after a similar hack in 2014.

> Arbitrage traders (buying where it’s cheap and reselling where it is dear) have been active – taking advantage of price differentials in multiple places and different times. They call it “capturing the arb”. Hedge funds, high frequency traders and even amateur enthusiasts are giving it a shot. Price divergences can be due to glitches or network traffic jams. In South Korea, exchanges quote abnormally wide prices reflecting high investors’ demand for bitcoin in the face of strict capital controls – giving rise to a “Kimchi premium” (of as high as 50% above US price; now down to 5% as price disparities are swiftly traded away).

> Concern over cryptocurrency activity is spreading beyond China, Japan, South Korea and India. This prompted the governor of the Bank of England, who also chairs the Global Financial Stability Board, to voice his unease over the anonymity embedded in blockchain technology underlying their use, especially for illicit activity (including money laundering). He disclosed that it would be on the agenda at the next G20 meeting. Tax authorities have also expressed concern over the under-reporting of capital gains tax.

> Bitcoin futures trading on Chicago’s CME and CBoE exchanges have been slow to catch fire – at the pace of a “slow walk”.

What then, are we to do

Reality check: Bitcoin is proving that cryptocurrencies can erase wealth as fast as they create it. In January 2018 alone, it wiped off US$45bil from its US$200bil in market value generated in all of 2017 – the biggest one-month loss in US dollar terms in its short history. Since then, more value is being lost. For most economists and finance experts, they don’t represent an investable asset – there are liquidity issues, safety issues, exchange issues; most of all, they have no intrinsic value.

Can’t realistically put a fix on their fair value. They are for speculators who are prepared to lose everything. Of course, its something else for those who use them for illicit activity (home to criminals and terrorists), including money laundering. Anonymity means you are potentially closing a chain, while at somewhere along it had some illicit activity that cannot see the light of day.

Fair enough, these concern regulators. But we shouldn’t lose sight of the huge range of opportunities presented by the underlying technology – a view shared by many in relation to raising the efficiency of payment systems. Regulators are right to want to regulate crypto but also, continue to encourage innovation on blockchain. As I see it, so far in 2018, bitcoin has been a total dud. The list of factors driving its decline is growing, especially rising regulatory clampdown occurring around the world.

So, the cryptocurrency market has fallen on tougher times. For sure, Bitcoin has been highly profitable for many investors. Indeed, there continues to be strong interest among millennials.

Bottom line: the year so far has been terrible for bitcoin. But the fundamental positive story for crypto appears to remain intact. Protecting consumers should make it harder for charlatans to sell digital dust. There is a point where it goes from “buying on the dip” to “catching a falling knife”. Only time will tell. So, beware!

NB: Following global regulatory crackdown, bitcoin’s price has on Feb 6 fallen to a low of US$5,947, wiping out over US$200bil so far this year. Bitcoin’s market cap is now US$109bil, about one-third of the total crypto market (that’s down from 85% this time last year). The Bank for International Settlements (banker to central banks) has now condemned bitcoin as “a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster” (refers to huge amounts of electricity used to create it) and warns it can even become a “threat to financial stability”.


By Lin See-yan - what are we to do?

Former banker Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of The Global Economy in Turbulent Times (Wiley, 2015) and Turbulence in Trying Times (Pearson, 2017). Feedback is most welcome.

Related posts

 What is Blockchain Technology, its uses and applications?

https://youtu.be/E_kCCgsldjU According to Wikipedia, a blockchain , [1] [2] [3] originally block chain , [4] [5] is a continuously gr...

Global economic order under threat 

 

 Recalling Bank Negara’s massive forex losses in 1990s

Related News:

Bitcoin use under scrutiny in Bali

Bitcoin investors risk losing it all, warns Singapore

 

   

Bitcoin recovers some losses after its worst week since 2013

Global economic order under threat

Need to ‘civilise’ capitalism

THE world economy is in a much worse-off shape than even many who know had expected, or what central bankers have come to understand.

Whatever growth there is remains paltry and uneven. Deflation was viewed as a strictly Japanese phenomenon. Now it’s a global threat, being revived and updated by Harvard’s Lawrence Summers as “secular stagnation.” The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says 2016 will be the fifth straight year of global growth below 3.7%, its average for nearly two decades before the recent great recession.

G-20 economies (representing 85% of the world economy, comprising most rich nations and major emerging economies) are expected to again downgrade their forecast to below 3% global expansion this year. They are likely to miss the target they had set for themselves in 2014 to lift their combined output by 2% over the IMF’s then forecast for 2018.

In early September, G-20 leaders met in Hangzhou, China, in the wake of Brexit and the rise of populist politics on both sides of the Atlantic with a strong sense of urgency to placate public discontent. Indeed, they have to “civilise’’ capitalism (Australian Prime Minister) as they seek to revive economic growth and address growing public scepticism about the benefits of free trade and growing backlash against globalisation. “Growth has been too low, for too long, for too few” (IMF chief Christine Lagarde).

Hangzhou consensus

This time G-20 leaders were on the defensive, amid a welter of familiar complaints back home on frustratingly slow growth, rising social inequalities and the surge of corporate tax avoidance. Looking back, the summer of 2016 is viewed not as a period of respite but as the moment it became clear that policy solutions from G-20, IMF and major central banks aren’t working well.

They have proved woefully inadequate. As a result, businesses are pessimistic about growth prospects, as reflected in low expectations for long-term interest rates. Yield on German 10-year notes is negative 0.116% p.a. What’s needed is a new approach. There has to be more growth and growth must be more inclusive.

At Hangzhou, the G-20 list of remedies rivals the world economy in its complexities, running beyond 7,000 words (excluding several lengthy appendices) addressing many issues, including immigration, terrorism, energy and Zika virus. Indeed, it risks looking “like an X’mas tree”. It was preceded by a surprising display of co-operation between China and US, who together ratified the Paris climate change agreement.

A long list of problems was on the table: including overstretched central banks, trade disputes, corporate tax avoidance, inequality and the populist backlash against globalisation and free trade. In the end, the Hangzhou consensus reflected an “innovative, invigorated, interconnected and inclusive” approach towards its main goals. It adopted a wide-ranging package of policies based on “Vision” (of innovative, new drivers of growth); “Integration” (forge synergy among fiscal, monetary and structural reform policies); “Openness” (build an open world economy, rejecting protectionism); and “Inclusiveness” (ensure growth promotes the role of women and youth, and generates quality jobs, addresses inequality and eradicates poverty).

All these won’t be enough to get us out of the rut. The real setback remains one of credibility. G-20’s sprawling agenda is filled with items that have little chance of success. Many stakeholders and opinion-makers are unlikely to take them really seriously. Experience shows that G-20 is better off when it focuses. Better stick with a limited agenda that has a high chance of achieving an outcome. Sometimes, more is done by doing less.

As host, China promoted innovation as the core of the G-20 agenda. This is sensible because: (i) the use of monetary and fiscal policies can only achieve so much. In the longer-run, real progress has to depend on improved productivity – getting more out of existing resources; and (ii) overcoming anxiety arising from the use of technologies and artificial intelligence that threaten jobs. Getting G-20 to think collectively about the downside of innovation and fintech can only help. There is then the endorsement of a set of non-binding principles designed to guide governments in devising cross-border investment policies in an effort to revive cross-border investment, which is sagging along with global growth and trade. The intention is good – there is a need to foster a more open, transparent global environment for investment, and ensure national and international rules remain clear, coherent and consistent. No investment, no trade, no growth.

Globalisation

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), i.e. the rich nations’ club, warned last week that growth in world trade is set to lag global growth in 2016, i.e. globalisation as measured by trade intensity has stalled. Other signs are just as worrisome: (i) ratio of world trade to output has been flat since 2008; (ii) volume of world trade stagnated between January 2015 and March 2016; (iii) stock of cross-border financial assets peaked at 57% global GDP in 2007, down by 36% over 2015; and (iv) inflows of foreign direct investment remained well below 3.3% of world GDP reached in 2007.

Indeed, the growing backlash against trade liberalisation as well as recessions in some big commodity producers are adding to the slackening of trade flows and is likely to erode already flagging productivity and ultimately global living standards. All this, at a time of poor economic performance in the rich nations, rising inequality and big shifts in the balance of global power.

So much so, failure to deal with the negative consequences of globalisation has surged into the political agenda of several large nations (including the US) facing forthcoming elections. Worse still, growth is too meagre to generate the jobs that youths expect and to fulfil pension promises for the elderly. Indeed, globalisation has stalled. Does it matter?

Yes it does. Recent history witnessed the first fall in global inequality of household incomes since the early 19th century. Average world real income rose by 120% between 1980 and 2015. The opportunities accorded by global integration should not be dismissed. No man is an island. Globalisation’s failure, however, lies in (a) not ensuring that its gains are not better shared, and (b) just as dismal is failure to assist those adversely affected. But, the net impact on jobs and wages from rising productivity and new technologies has far exceeded rising imports.

Globalisation shouldn’t be made the scapegoat. What’s really needed is better management. I recall Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz’s main message in his 2002 book Globalisation and its Discontents: the problem is not globalisation but how the process is being managed. The rules of the game has to include measures to “tame globalisation.” Unfortunately, global management didn’t change. Today, the new discontents are bringing home the same message – only more intensely.

Inequality

G-20 leaders in Hangzhou were preoccupied with the need to placate public discontent about the unequal distribution of the benefits of free trade and globalisation. Hence, a lot of talk about people. China’s President Xi Jinping set the tone: “Development is for the people. It should be pursued by the people and its outcome should be shared by the people. This is not just a moral responsibility. It also helps unleash immeasurable effective demand.”

In China, Xi said: “We will make the pie bigger and make sure people get a fairer share of it.” The global Gini coefficient – the economist’s measure of inequality, has raced passed (Xi’s) “alarm level of 0.6, and now stood at 0.7” (the closer it approaches 1, the greater the inequality in income distribution). “We need to build a more inclusive world economy.”

Unfortunately, globalisation is today seen naively as a zero-sum-game (I win, you lose), with a US presidential hopeful arguing that China’s rise has come at the expense of US manufacturing heartlands – reflecting a rising disenchantment with the global economic order. It’s spreading. Last week, France publicly called on Brussels to end trade deal talks between US and Europe, citing a globalisation “without rules, where social models are pit against each other and dragged downward, where inequalities grow.”

This “docile of discontent” is best illustrated by Branko Milanovic’s controversial “elephant chart,” which was created (from 196 household surveys worldwide) by ranking world population (from the poorest 10% to the richest 1%) showing growth in income between 1988 and 2008, i.e. from the fall of the Berlin Wall to the fall of Lehman Brothers.

His global chart traced the distribution of growth in real income as first sloping right up, then down sharply and up again steeply, like an elephant raising its trunk: it shows big income gains at the high middle and very top, with the era of globalisation offering very little or nothing for those in between (at the bottom and in the middle and working classes in the rich nations who are poorer than the top 15% but richer than everyone else; this group seemed scarcely better off in 2008 than they were 20 years before).

The stagnant fortunes of these Trumpian and Brexiteer discontents in advanced economies are squeezed between their own countries’ plutocrats and Asia’s rapidly rising middle-class. It is this dangerous sharp dip in the chart to near zero which reflects those who occupy this dangerous docile. Milanovic’s study showed that (a) Chinese middle-class and the world’s 1% rich have gained handsomely in the era of globalisation; (b) lower middle-class in rich countries have fared poorly; and (c) rising income inequality remains a serious problem.

What then, are we to do

Global growth are revised downwards yet again as its traditional engines of trade and investment sputter. OECD now estimates the world economy would muster growth of only 2.9% this year. I consider this to be optimistic. Worse, potential growth has fallen in both advanced and emerging economies. The rise in income and wealth inequalities exacerbates the glut in global savings (reflecting the global investment slump). This can only lead to lower trend growth. Economists call this “hysteresis”: long-term unemployment erodes workers’ skills and human capital; and because innovation is embedded in new capital goods, low investment leads to permanently lower productivity growth. That’s why structural and market reforms are vital to boost potential growth. This has become critical in Asean, especially Malaysia.

There are no politically easy solutions. I know fiscal policy (especially productive public investment that boosts both supply and demand) remains hostage of high debts and misguided austerity. For now, the world is likely to remain as IMF’s new mediocre, or in Summer’s secular stagnation, or China’s new normal.

Make no mistake. There is nothing healthy or normal about rising inequality in the face of continuing slow economic growth. Worse, it leads to rising populist backlash against trade, migration, globalisation, even technological innovation. Following the old road of relying purely on cheap and plentiful money leads to a dead end eventually.

Policymakers’ renewed focus on the need to make capitalism more inclusive is welcome. But rich nations need to ditch austerity in favour of purposeful fiscal support – emphasising structural supply side reforms. There is no other way to unleash effective demand. The tools are already available. Finally, of course, there is innovation.


By Lin See-Yan

Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist, Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of “The Global Economy in Turbulent Times” (Wiley, 2015). Feedback is most welcome; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.


Related posts

Action, not words or empty talk, needed to cure global economy, China tells G20 summit 

 

G20 summit recognizes China's success, a historic starting point for the world, expert said

All in a day’s work: Chinese President Xi Jinping attending the opening ceremony of the B20 Summit ahead of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou. ...

Global growth retreats

US Dollar-euro parity in sight

To raise or not to raise: the uS Federal reserve Building in Washington, DC. the probability of a rate-hike in December now exceeds 80% - delivering the first rise in borrowing costs

THERE we go again. Even before the ink is dry, global growth forecasts are downgraded once more.

Paris-based OECD’s (rich nations’ think tank) November Economic Outlook attributes a slump in the growth of world trade (brought about partly by China’s slowdown) as the major factor behind the sluggishness of the global economy.

It was only in October that IMF estimated world GDP will grow 3.1% in 2015 and 3.6% in 2016, in the face of slowing global trade at 2.8% this year (3.9% in 2016).

Now, OECD thinks global growth will ease to 2.9% (3.3% in 2014) and recover modestly to 3.3% in 2016.

Even these, I think, are optimistic. Bear in mind that growth in world trade had slackened in recent years (falling behind global GDP growth which is unusual and not a good sign) and has stagnated since late 2014. It is expected to grow only 2% this year against 3.4% in 2014 and a much faster rate in the early years of the decade: “World trade has been a bellwether for global output, and that global trade growth observed so far this year have in the past been associated with global recession.”

Meanwhile, further GDP slowdown in emerging market economies (EMEs) is weighing heavily on global economic activity. In addition, sluggish trade and subdued investment and low productivity growth are checking the momentum of recovery in the rich nations.

Indeed, there are already signs that many advanced economies are unlikely to reach anywhere near their potential output, despite continuing easy money. Over the medium term, the risks of recession and deflation have become more probable than indicated by the IMF.

Because of recent headwinds, the probability of recession in eurozone and Latin America has risen beyond 30% and 50% respectively, with Japan now in recession.

Simultaneously, the probability of deflation in eurozone and Latin America now exceeds 30%, while Japan is already experiencing significant deflationary tendencies.

This raises the spectre of secular stagnation (what Harvard’s Larry Summers refers to as the inability of an economy to grow to reach its full potential) at a time when policymakers are running out of firepower – fear that the policy tools available to combat deflating forces are becoming increasingly blunt.

The immediate risks

As I see it, many factors are shifting the global economy into a secular slowdown. Immediate risks include:

> Continuing deficient global demand in the face of excess capacity: The rich nations as a whole are in growth recession, with the US pulling-up the others which are struggling to jump start anaemic output. The eurozone is in extended stagnation; growth if any is low (in Germany) and uneven; indeed, the region is flirting with deflation.

Consumer prices have turned increasingly negative in Q3’15. Abenomics is faltering, moving Japan into recession (-0.7% in Q2’15 and -0.8% in Q3’15). IMF predicts the biggest contributors to global growth in 2015-2020 are the faster growing EMEs. Among the top 10, only two are rich nations (US & UK); heading the list are China (accounting for nearly 30%), India (15%) and US (10%); the remainder being (in descending order) Indonesia, Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, Nigeria, UK and Turkey.

> Falling commodity prices: Energy, food and metals prices have fallen significantly over the past year. As a whole, commodity prices are now down 51% from its peak on April 29, 2011. Oil price has fallen 61% since June 14 and is languishing very near US$40 a barrel last weekend. Gold price lost 9% so far in 2015, dropping to a 5-year low at below US$1,065 per troy ounce on Nov 18.

Already, weary investors have begun to sense an end to the raw materials rout, as prices for most dipped below production costs. But few expect a quick rebound. The historical record: after commodity prices tipped over in 1997, it took 21 months to correct the fall. In 2000-01, it was 13 months.

After collapsing in 2008, commodity prices hit bottom in just eight months. This time, the index has been falling for four years and still counting. Nothing preordains a turnaround. Studies of commodity prices dating back to the 19th century found that cycles have been known to last 30-40 years.

So, don’t raise your hopes. Off-setting these “cuts” are currency weaknesses in many commodity-exporting nations since most commodities are priced in US dollar - thus translating to higher revenues in local currency, at least for now.

> China slowing down; so are EMEs and BRICS: Latest data points to an Asia where growth is stabilising in the region of 5%, reflecting very low growth in the more advanced Asian nations as a whole, where growth was at 1.5% annually (with South Korea and Taiwan expanding about twice as fast).

Asian EMEs are decelerating from close to 8% in 2011 to 6.5% or less in 2015. China is down to 6.8% this year but India is doing well at 7.3%. Similarly, the Asean 5 (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam) is also slowing down, from 6.2% in 2012 to 4.6% expected this year.

Within the region, performance is mixed: Thailand is doing rather badly at 2.5%; while growth in Vietnam will accelerate to 6.5%, with the Philippines not far behind at 6%.

Both Malaysia and Indonesia will each grow at around 4.5% this year and not much more next year. Expectation is that growth in Asean 5 will likely stabilise in 2016 at between 4.5%-5%.

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) will continue to slacken considerably, growing at less than 2%, dragged down by severe recession in Russia and Brazil and hardly any growth in South Africa. EMEs now face a host of problems constraining their ability to grow.

Plummeting commodity prices, BRICS’s slowdown and investor flight are exposing deep-rooted weaknesses requiring fundamental economic overhauls, but made difficult by domestic politics and corruption. China’s successful transition towards a slower, but a more sustainable growth path will benefit growth all round, despite disruptions generated by rebalancing reforms, notwithstanding China’s sizable buffers available for it to cope.

> Rising US interest rates: The spectre of Fed uncertainty over the rate uplift that has spooked world markets will soon end, hopefully. The probability of a rate-hike in December now exceeds 80% - delivering the first rise in borrowing costs for nearly a decade. Expectation is for a quarter of 1% rise, with gradual but orderly small bites over the coming year. No big deal really, considering that Federal funds rate is already close to zero (below 0.2%) today and the yield on 5-year US Treasuries is only 1.65% per annum.

> Strengthening US dollar: The consensus is for US dollar to continue to strengthen, reflecting its relatively strong economy and prospects of a near term rate-hike in the face of economic weaknesses world-wide. The US dollar index (against six of its peers) has tipped past 99.6 (up 10.3% so far this year) for the first time since April.

Odds are for euro to be at parity with the US dollar; it has already touched 1.05. Tge euro has depreciated 13% so far this year.

The Chinese yuan is stable since this summer’s policy change. It is now likely that the yuan will be included in the SDR basket of elite currencies before year-end – in practice, bestowing on it reserve currency status.

Against a basket of EME currencies, however, the JP Morgan US dollar index is up 13.7% over the year; the Brazilian real is down 30.1% so far this year (until December 10); Malaysian ringgit, -20.2%; Turkish lira, -18.6%; Mexican peso, -12.1%; and Indonesia rupiah, -9.9.

Most certainly, Malaysia’s strong economic fundamentals don’t deserve a near 30% currency downgrade over the past year – it’s over-depreciated by at least 10%-15% after discounting the “bad” politics.

US President Obama (in Malaysia recently) is right to emphasise the critical importance of accountability and transparency, and the need to root out corruption in government.

> Destabilising politics and conflict: G-20 continues to struggle to come up with workable viable steps to reshape an increasingly dour economic outlook. They also face a host of new troubles, from political problems to security crises, raising doubts about preventing the global economy from falling into a long-term funk. Now, the growing refugee crisis in Europe and renewed fears of widespread terrorism after the Paris, Sinai (Egypt) & Bamako (Mali) attacks are proving difficult to fix. Soon enough, these heinous acts will become a pressing economic and business issue, bringing with it far reaching pressures on recovery efforts on the global economy.

What then, are we to do

So it’s not surprising that global economic prospects are repeatedly marked down in recent years. Add to this calls to join-in the war to fight terrorism with its multi-faceted business implications.

What’s worrisome is the rising risk of a world economy persistently mired in sub-par growth – as though hysteresis (impact of past experience on subsequent performance) has taken hold, with the attendant unacceptably wide income disparities, serious security issues, and persistent unemployment.

There is also the need to address the “large-scale displacement of people” with far reaching humanitarian development dimensions. Given that the global economy is still faced with much economic slack and very low inflation (indeed, even deflation), the complex challenges ahead will require continued monetary accommodation and fiscal support, notwithstanding frequent disruptions arising from China’s and EMEs’ reform transition, in the face of financial market volatility emerging from the pending Fed rate lift-off and the prospective strengthening of the US dollar.

Warren Buffett is known to have said: only when the tide has receded can you see who has been swimming naked. Cheap QE money has spoiled EMEs. Traditionally, debt busts in EMEs are centred on their sovereign US dollar denominated bonds.

Today’s “naked” EMEs reside in the corporate sector, mostly exposed to local currency bonds.

Their total private debt now far exceeds 100% of GDP, even higher than it was among the rich nations on the brink of the 2008 financial crisis. In the face of a debt crunch, they can become unduly vulnerable, especially for EMEs with a difficult and uncertain future.

Clearly, tepid and uneven growth raises the risk that can tip an economy into recession. Easy times have come & gone. Much soul searching lies ahead.

By Lin See-Yan What are we to do? 

Former banker, Harvard educated economist and British Chartered Scientist Tan Sri Lin See-Yan is the author of ‘The Global Economy in Turbulent Times’ (Wiley, 2015). Feedback is most welcomed; email: starbiz@thestar.com.my.



Related post:

If China killed commodities super cycle, Fed is about to bury it

Has the Commodities Supercycle Run Its Course? bloomberg.com Gordon Johnson, A...