The Reinhart-Rogoff controversy: some microeconomic evidence

The duel between pro-austerity and pro-stimulus advocates is now being fought on the relationship between economic growth and debt/GDP ratios, following the Reinhart and Rogoff finding that there was a "tipping point" around 90 per cent of debt-to-GDP ratio when the correlation between debt and economic growth would become negative.

Their finding was questioned by Herndon-Ash-Pollin who estimated that the strength of the negative relationship was actually much stronger at low ratios of debt-to-GDP. Recently Dube, using the same set of data, estimated that current period debt-to-GDP is a pretty poor predictor of future GDP growth at debt-to-GDP ratios of 30 or greater but it does a great job predicting past growth which he claims is a tell-tale sign of reverse causality. That is, recession leads to increased spending and greater government borrowing not the other way around. Krugman joined the debate on Dube´s side but cautioned about claiming any causal relationship, or, if it existed, it would be pretty slim.

The debate is not over and, most likely, macroeconomists will continue sabre-rattling with lags and correlation studies to discuss the direction of causality and the location of the “tipping point”. In my view, it is unlikely that they will arrive at any unequivocal conclusion at the macroeconomic level for three main reasons. First, if we assumed a closed economy with a single firm we would end up with an accounting identity between total assets and their financing that would prevent any causality conclusions. Second, since leverage amplifies both gains and losses, any relationship must be very sensitive to the business cycles. Finally, the microeconomics of debt financing is too complex to build a one-way macroeconomic theory.

Yet at the firm level it must be easier to find if there is such a tipping point. There are basically three ways in which we can use debt-financing – to finance consumption, failed investments (including gambling) and profitable investments. In the long run only the third use is sustainable, but in the short run the three types of spending have a positive multiplier effect on economic growth. Elsewhere, I have shown why at the corporate level debt financing has simultaneously contracting and expansionary effects on investment, with the positive generally offsetting the negative effect depending on lender’s mark-ups and borrowing limits.

The corporate level is the right place to find out if and where there is any tipping point in the spectrum of leverage, because if there is one it should be close to the maximum debt-capacity financiers impose on the basis of several debt coverage ratios. Moreover, we may extrapolate those results to the macro level under the following, not very extravagant, assumptions: a) the shares of labour and capital in total income are relatively stable; b) an ever increasing number of companies do not pay dividends so that the growth of equity is a good proxy for economic growth; and c) listed companies give a good representation of the entire business sector.

Since profitable companies should use leverage to increase the return to their shareholders, the correct way to verify if they benefit from increased leverage is to check if the elasticity of equity in relation to debt is greater than one or at least positive. Since at SADIF Investment Analytics we cover more than 20,000 stocks worldwide we quickly pulled the quarterly growth rates of equity and debt for the last four years which allow us to gauge the relationship between equity growth and debt-financing.

We used data from countries that in the popular imagination epitomise the three types of use for debt financing. Americans are often seen as reckless shopaholics pursuing consumption-led growth policies, Euromeds (Portuguese, Spaniards, Italians, Slovenes and Greeks) are generally perceived as castle-in-the-air investors in loss-making projects in transportation and alternative energies generously financed by the EU/EIB and Germans are traditionally depicted as successful thrifty mercantilists. The distribution of firms and the median equity elasticity in each quadrant of the equity and debt growth space is given below.

The median equity elasticities highlighted in the table seem to validate the popular view on the use of debt financing since the Germans have the highest value and the Euromeds the lowest. The only discordant note is that the percentage of firms with a positive elasticity is much higher in spendthrift America than in thrifty Germany which weakens any macroeconomic extrapolation.

To test the location of a possible tipping point I plotted the equity elasticity against the extra debt capacity measured as the spare level of debt capacity as a percentage of total outstanding debt, so that we can measure the leverage spectrum from left to right in the chart below for the USA.
<
The expectation is that elasticities rise as firms deleverage or leverage towards their maximum debt capacity (0% extra-capacity). The maximum of the quadratic functions fitted are indeed close to zero (i. e. -1.7% in the US and 7.3% in Germany). However the function is meaningless for the Euromeds and the coefficient of determination is too low for the other two countries.

So, in conclusion, this microeconomic evidence suggests that it is not possible to settle the debate on the correlation between growth and debt without allowing for the business cycle and the microeconomic complexities of debt financing.

We can’t all deleverage at the same time

We can’t all deleverage at the same time. That would be equivalent to everyone moving to the same spot in a sinking ship. It would capsize immediately. To see why, imagine this nightmare scenario: everywhere and everybody – banks, firms, governments and families – think that they are overleveraged (i.e. is excessively in debt) and decide to reduce debt (deleverage) simultaneously. Regardless of whether they are right or wrong about their excessive level of debt (in a previous post we explain why this is difficult to define); the simultaneous deleveraging could start the following fatal spiral.

Banks reduced excessive leverage by not renewing their lending facilities to firms; these add misery to injury and reduce further their leverage by firing workers and trying to sell assets. Braced with lower tax revenues and higher calls for unemployment insurance, governments answer by reducing public debt through higher taxes and massive cuts in spending; which reduce the revenue streams of banks, firms and families. Families, affected by higher unemployment, loss of revenues and fearing the future, decide also to deleverage by saving more or defaulting on their loans and by massive cuts in spending. This would reduce further the revenues of banks, firms and governments. Thus, to pursue their debt reducing objectives all would initiate a new round of cuts. This would cause a downward spiral of spending cuts that would stop only after the economy was brought to a complete halt and widespread defaults.

Wait, there must exist some break point on this spiral. After all, debts are owed to someone and those receiving the debt repayments must use their surplus money. Yes, but what if, fearing that same spiral, they decide to hoard it by holding cash, exchanging it for some remote currency (e.g. the Swiss Franc) or buying some relic from the past (e.g. gold). The first, if not offset by the Central Bank, would cause a major liquidity crisis accelerating the depression. The other two may lead to absurd bubbles whose anticipated bust would hang on the heads of enterprising people. So, not much hope here.

What if there is somewhere an unleveraged entity willing to finance an orderly sequence of deleveraging through saving and inflation? To a large extent that was the situation at the end of World War II, when the US played that role. Can’t China and other emerging nations play that role now? Probably not, because they do not have the economic size needed to face a much bigger problem. Moreover, by accepting a rescue from a dictatorship, the Western democratic nations would risk losing their freedom.

Indeed, despite some double counting, the following table shows that the net international investment position of the Western countries is less than 3% of their GDP, largely because of the high level of savings in Japan. Yet, Japan has the largest government debt as a percentage of GDP (226%).

Unfortunately, a deleveraging spiral may start without all countries being overleveraged. A debt crisis in one sector (e.g. the Government) may easily infect the remaining or be started off by a generalized downgrade by the rating agencies. In fact, some fear that the leading Western nations (US, European Union and Japan) may be in the brink of getting into such a depression spiral started by deleveraging in the sovereign debt sector. So they desperately need to find an alternative solution.

First, they must plug once and for all the holes emerging in the weaker economies of the Euro Area. Second, they must mobilize the spending power of the few remaining sectors with borrowing capacity. Finally, and most importantly, they must acknowledge that at least one entity must be allowed to continue to increase its leverage while the others deleverage.

Here the obvious choice must be the Government (except in Japan), due to its policy powers, but mostly because it is the only one that can borrow with very long maturities.

Thus, although we live in a peacetime period, sovereign debt limits in the US and Europe can be increased to levels close to those observed at the end of wars. That is, countries with national debts around 60% of GDP could borrow close to a 100%, while those already above the 100% should be allowed to borrow up to 180% of GDP.

The process, relying on multilateral facilities, should be sequential with an agreed calendar and coordinated at the level of the G3 group of countries (not the G20, which should only have a consultative role).